Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director And Anr vs Smt. Archana D/O Venkoba on 30 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
WP No. 207587 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO.207587 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
N.E.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE,
SARIGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.E.K.R.T.C., RAICHUR DIVISION,
RAICHUR
BOTH 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS ARE,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN ...PETITIONERS
L MALAGHAN (BY SRI DEEPAK BARAD, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
SMT. ARCHANA D/O VENKOBA
AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
EX. CONDUCTOR NO.2150,
R/O KALMAL,
TQ., AND DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
WP No. 207587 of 2017
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI WHEREBY QUASHING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
KALABURAGI DATED-06.04.2017 IN REF.NO.69/2016 AS AT
ANNEXURE-D TO THIS WRIT PETITION, ISSUE ANY OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN
VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE
STATED ABOVE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking following relief:
i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
whereby quashing the judgment and award
passed by the Labour Court, Kalaburagi
dated-06.04.2017 in Ref.No.69/2016 as at
Annexure-D to this writ petition.
ii) Issue any other order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in view of the facts
and circumstance of the case stated above.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent was
appointed as Conductor and was serving in the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
petitioner No.1-Corporation and at the time of her
dismissal she was working under petitioner No.2 as a
Conductor. On 16.10.2013 she was discharging her duty
as a Conductor in bus bearing Reg.No.F-1051 plying from
Raichur-Karnool. The said bus was checked at stage
No.15 by the officers of Corporation and it was found that
36+2+00 passengers were in the bus and respondent had
failed to issue tickets to three adult passengers despite of
collecting requisite fare amount of Rs.50/- each from the
said passengers. Therefore, the checking officers issued
memos/show cause notice to the respondent and matter
was reported to petitioner-Corporation.
3. Petitioner-Corporation initiated enquiry by
appointing a enquiry officer. After holding a detailed
enquiry it was found that respondent had conducted
misconduct of non-issue of ticket even after collecting the
fare. Thereafter, disciplinary authority by issuing second
show cause notice to the respondent for which she had
given reply.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
4. After hearing respondent, petitioner-
Corporation passed an order dated 07.08.2014 vide
Annexure-A dismissing the respondent from the service.
5. Respondent has challenged the said order
before the Labour Court at Kalaburagi. The learned
Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Kalaburagi, after
rehearing the matter and recording of the evidence let in
by both the parties, concurred with the findings of enquiry
officer. However, the learned Presiding Officer of the
Labour Court exercising power under Section 11A of
Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the
I.D.Act' for short) modified the punishment imposed by
the enquiry officer and directed to reinstate the
respondent without back wages with continuity of service
with a last pay drawn by withholding four annual
increments with cumulative effect. The said judgment/
order of Labour Court was accepted by the government
and Notification appears to be issued in this regard. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
same is challenged by the petitioners on the grounds
mentioned in the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
contends that the Labour Court accepted that respondent
had committed misconduct of not issuing of tickets though
collected fare but instead of confirming the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority interfered in the said
findings. The Labour Court did not consider that the
respondent had committed similar type of misconduct and
she was punished in 107 cases. The numbers which are
mentioned in detail in order passed by the disciplinary
authority. These facts clearly indicate that she may
continue the same behaviour in future also. Therefore,
exercising jurisdiction under 11A of the I.D.Act in respect
of such employee is not just and proper. The punishment
imposed by the petitioners-disciplinary authority is in
accordance with regulation of KSRTC. Therefore, prayed
to set aside the impugned order.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
7. Sri. P. Vilas Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel
for respondent contended that the Labour Court held that
enquiry held by the disciplinary authority was not in
accordance with law, thereafter recorded the evidence.
The Labour Court itself has observed that petitioners have
not produced sufficient materials to prove that respondent
was involved in 107 cases of misconduct of non issue of
the tickets. Since the meager amount of penalty were
imposed in earlier instances and therefore she did not
challenge the same. It does not mean that she had
accepted the said misconduct. Respondent was aged about
34 years at the time of her dismissal from service. The
record reveals that she had not deliberately committed the
said misconduct. The dismissal order was passed during
2014 and for last ten years she has not been in service
and she has lost her earnings for last ten years.
Considering these facts the Labour Court acting under
Section 11A of the I.D.Act, took lenient view. Even the
Labour Court has also considered the rights of the
petitioners and did not awarded back wages. The Labour
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
Court also imposed penalty of withholding four annual
increments with cumulative effect. The findings of the
Labour Court is valid there is no illegality committed by
the Labour Court. Therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is
acceptable. The Labour Court held issue No.1 against the
petitioners. Thereafter recorded fresh evidence of the
parties to the proceedings and on that basis held that
respondent had committed misconduct. The Labour Court
has also considered regarding punishment to be imposed
and previous alleged misconduct committed by her. In
para-17 of the impugned judgment, the Labour Court had
exercised power under Section 11A of the I.D.Act and also
assigned the reasons why it was required to exercise
powers under Section 11A of the I.D.Act. There is no
illegality in the findings of the Labour Court. The Labour
Court had followed the principle of 'no work no pay' and
directed petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to reinstate workman
within four weeks and it has also considered the interest of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
the petitioners by denying back wages and also
withholding the four annual increments with cumulative
effect. The dismissal from service ordered by the
disciplinary authority is highly disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct committed by the respondent. I do
not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the
Labour Court in the impugned judgment.
9. The Labour Court had given four weeks time for
reinstatement of respondent; During the pendency of this
matter, the said period is expired. Therefore, it is just and
necessary to direct the petitioners to implement the order
passed by the Labour Court within six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) As ordered by the Labour Court it is made
clear that respondent is entitled for wages
from the date of her reinstatement.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3443
(iii) Petitioners shall reinstate respondent within
six weeks from this order.
In view of disposal of main petition, all pending IAs
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
CT:PK
