Karnataka High Court
M.S. Raju vs Karnataka State Road on 25 October, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
WA No. 1439 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1439 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
M.S. RAJU
S/O MADHAVARAO
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/A INDRAMMA MANE
BIKSHUKARA ASHRAMA
RAILWAY GATE
NAYANDAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 039
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHAKAMBARI KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
Location: HIGH TRANSPORT CORPORATION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION
BANGALORE-560 027
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P No. 38734/2018
DATED 04/10/2023 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
WA No. 1439 of 2023
RELIEFs AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Appellant aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2023 in
WP No. 38784/2014 by which, respondent-Corporation's
writ petition was allowed setting aside the award dated
08.09.2017 in ID No.32/2015 on the file of III Addl.Labour
Court, Bengaluru wherein order of dismissal dated
18.03.2015 of the appellant with continuity of service and
all other consequential benefits without any backwages
has been set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that; the appellant
was working as Conductor in respondent-KSRTC (in short
`Corporation') and on the allegation of non-issue of tickets
to nine passengers who were travelling from Mysuru to
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
Srirangapatna by collecting Rs.25/- each, a charge memo
was issued to the appellant. After enquiry, the appellant
was dismissed from service by order dated 18.03.2015.
The appellant raised dispute in ID No.32/2015.
3. The Labour Court ,initially held that the enquiry
against this appellant is not fair and proper. The
respondent-Corporation to prove the charge, examined
two witnesses MWs. 2 and 3 whereas, the workman
examined himself as WW.1. The Management marked
exhibits M1 to M14 whereas, the appellant-workman
marked W1 to W21.
4. The Labour Court, on appreciation of the
material on record answered issue whether the first
party(Workman) proves that the order of dismissal dated
18.3.2015 is illegal and arbitrary in the affirmative and
answered issue as to whether the second party
(Corporation) justifies the order of dismissal on the basis
of alleged misconduct in the negative and held that the
punishment of dismissal on the appellant is
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
disproportionate to the alleged charge, set aside the order
of dismissal and directed respondent-Corporation to
reinstate the workman to his original post within 30 days
from the date of publication of award with continuity of
service and all other consequential benefits, without any
backwages.
5. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-Corporation
was before this Court in WP No.38734/2018 and the
learned Single Judge of this Court under the impugned
order dated 4.10.2023 allowed the writ petition set aside
order dated 08.09.2017 in ID No.32/2015 passed by the
III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru which is called in
question in this writ appeal.
6. Learned counsel Sri M.C.Basavaraju for
appellant-workman submits that the learned Single Judge
failed to appreciate the fact that the other similarly
situated persons were imposed with minor punishment
and only the appellant is imposed with punishment of
dismissal. In that regard, the learned counsel invited
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
attention of this Court to Ex.W18 to 20 the order passed in
WP No.41514/2003 wherein the Corporation had imposed
minor punishment of withholding of one increment and
directed to reinstate the workman into service.
7. Learned counsel Sri Basavaraju would further
submit that learned Single Judge failed to examine the
case on merits as to whether the Corporation has properly
proved the charge against the appellant-workman. Thus,
the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order
of the learned Single Judge is the result of total non-
examination of material on record. Thus, he prays for
allowing the writ appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka,
appearing for respondent-Corporation supports the order
passed by the learned Single Judge and further submits
that when the Tribunal has held that charge levelled
against the appellant is proved, could not have held that
the punishment is disproportionate. The learned counsel
would submit that charge against the appellant-workman
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
is non-issuance of tickets to nine passengers by collecting
Rs.25/- each. Learned counsel would submit that for
prayed charge of non-issue of tickets, removal or dismissal
is the only punishment as held by Hon'ble Apex Court,
hence she would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only question
which calls for consideration is, as to whether the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
requires interference at the hands of this Court. The
answer to the above question is in the negative for the
following reasons:
10. It is not in dispute that, initially, the Labour
Court held that the enquiry held by respondent-
Corporation against the petitioner is not fair and proper. In
that view of the matter, respondent-Management
examined the witnesses before the Labour Court and
marked as many as 14 documents to prove the charge,
whereas, workman examined himself as WW.1 and
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
marked as many as 21 documents. On appreciation of the
material on record, the Labour Court has held that the
charge against the appellant-workman is proved. When
the charge of non-issuance of tickets is proved, the
punishment normally would be removal or dismissal which
the respondent-Corporation had imposed. The Labour
Court could exercise its discretionary power under Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and could
substitute punishment in appropriate cases. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah &
others vs. Hoti Lal and another1 has held that the Court
or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment
has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the
punishment was not commensurate with the proved
charges. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was
dealing with a case arising out of non-issuance of ticket by
a conductor working in UPSRTC. The Hon'ble Apex Court at
paragraphs 9 and 10 has held as follows:
(2003) 3 SCC 605
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
"9. The decision in U.P. SRTC case [(2000) 3
SCC 450 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 356] was really in a
different factual background making it
distinguishable from the facts of the present case,
and has no application. In Karnataka SRTC v. B.S.
Hullikatti [(2001) 2 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L&S)
469] it was held that it is misplaced sympathy by
courts in awarding lesser punishments where on
checking it is found that the bus conductors have
either not issued tickets to a large number of
passengers, though they should have, or have
issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully
well the correct fare to be charged. It is the
responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the
correct fare from the passengers and deposit the
same with the Corporation. They act in a fiduciary
capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct
if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the
correct amount of fare. It was finally held that the
order of dismissal should not have been set aside.
The view was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench
in Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam
Sharma [(2002) 10 SCC 330 : (2002) 1 LLJ 234]
where it was additionally observed that the proved
acts amount either to a case of dishonesty or of
gross negligence, and bus conductors who by their
actions or inactions cause financial loss to the
corporations are not fit to be retained in service.
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
10. It needs to be emphasized that the court
or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of
punishment has to record reasons as to why it is
felt that the punishment was not commensurate
with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in
several cases to which reference has been made
above, the scope for interference is very limited
and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated
circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case
as the quoted extracts of the High Court's order
would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have
been indicated as to why the punishment was
considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links
between the mind of the decision taken to the
controversy in question and the decision or
conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons
amounts to denial of justice. [See Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120
(NIRC)] .] A mere statement that it is
disproportionate would not suffice. A party
appearing before a court, as to what it is that the
court is addressing its mind. It is not only the
amount involved but the mental set-up, the type of
duty performed and similar relevant circumstances
which go into the decision-making process while
considering whether the punishment is
proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
employee holds a position of trust where honesty
and integrity are inbuilt requirements of
functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the
matter leniently."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is
misplaced sympathy by courts in awarding lesser
punishments where on checking it is found that the bus
conductors have either not issued tickets to a large
number of passengers, though they should have, or have
issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well
the correct fare to be charged.
12. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma2,
at paragraph.4 it is observed as follows:
" This Court in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S.
Hullikatti [(2001) 2 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L&S)
469] has held that in such cases where the bus
conductors carry passengers without ticket or issue
tickets at a less rate than the proper rate, the said
acts would inter alia amount to either being a case
of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such
conductors were not fit to be retained in service
(2002) 10 SCC 330
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:43208-DB
because such inaction or action on the part of the
conductors results in financial loss to the Road
Transport Corporation. This Court was firmly of the
opinion that in cases like the present, orders of
dismissal should not be set aside."
13. In the instant case, the appellant-workman was
involved in nearly 35 similar cases in the past where
lenient action was taken against appellant-workman.
Taking note of the past history and the proved misconduct
of non-issuance of tickets, the punishment of dismissal
imposed by the Corporation is proportionate and it cannot
be said that it is disproportionate. Thus, we do not find
any merit in the writ appeal.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
