-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA T.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA '
DATED THIS THE am my OF MARCH} *
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE
WRIT PE'I'ITION No.§*%1o23}200s
BETWEEN:
MOHD. KHAS._iM §3AB
s/oMAHE3oQ_5~-SAB
Now AGED .AB7.(J}U'I' S9
Ex-cO,M--Du{?1*9R'iéstém,-._
NO,13a'30, MAm?1 _D'£1P(}._, ' _
R/AT:Not4;s51/'B;-».;,owE12"'LtNI:,
KOKIDAMQVIA TEMPL:E-- ST-REEF,
WAD1, GULBARGA. ' "
" .(svfl/;é$R;_'mz~;;KAéPA"'PA'r1L, ADV.)
5r;:_3':' T. '
'fH§_§ DIvIs3':§Vr:}\L CONTROLLER,
1~:.12:.'x.12=...*r.c:.'%
.. ' ' V._RAICE-fl}R:. DIVISION,
.. PETITTONER
..RESPONDEN'I'
'THIS WRYI' PETITEON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
END 22'? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE QRDER PASSED BY THE PRESISING
OFFICER, LABOUT COURT,
GULBARGA,
NO. 106/2093 {DATED 2.3.017, ANNEXURE-B,
I
iN KID
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION comma 01¢ i"-71?'£iiR
PRL.HEARING THIS BAY, THE COURT
FOLLOWING:
The petitioner while 2 .,
conductor in the respondezifi:b*'31'Doi~ation,.i V
was found to have not .1§sned"'t;ieii:eViis..of to two
passengers traveliing 'No. 1 to Adoni
Stage No.16 a§;1€i£..:_1'j1ot when the bus
was cheei§ed~ 15. The disciplinary
authofiigy' by issuing a charge
shwt, -vappoixiiiiirig Aeiiquiry oflicer who extended
.t'I"ea$oi'.19.Ei5ie of hearing to the petitioner in
and returned a finding that the
Z _ chei*gesi.§ivafé«:""1§roved. The disciplinaiy authority on an
H H " indepencient assessment of the facts and circumstances
i:;he':<:ase and the evidence on record, held the charge
Vi " proved and as the past record of the service of the
petitioner did not disclose any mitigating
-3-
circumstances, having suffered minor 'die:
59 cases of nondssue of tickets, by
14.2.2003 dismissed the
the Corporation. That order wad.
the petition under Seetioxi'V"=iG(4--A) "'o_i_' iiL:1¢1fism'a1 ii
Disputes Act, 1947 ' ~-_Act)i ' filing an
application before Court,
Guibargfi No.106/2003.
The resisted the
ii_'s,ta_i,VeVi1V}.eI1t. In the premise of
the pleading the Labour Court framed
issues including" 'a pteiiminary issue over the validity of
enquiry, which was answered in the
dated 1.4.2006 in other words the
'enquiry was set aside and permitted the
V' i'p'aztt:ieve' to lead evidence afiesh. For the respondent-
Afiofporation one Witness was examined as MW1 and
‘V Wfour documents marked as Exs.M1 to M4 while the
petitioner tenderm evidence as WW1. The Labour
-4-
Court: having considered the material on
evidence both oral and V’
explajxation ofiered by the pefitienei;. thetTT
passengers were empleyeeepoif of
passes. The Labour held” fleere was
no mitigating extraneeus
circumstances . conduct of
services, with minor
punis11:1x1e11:”.’V.V.§:§;ve. ” accordingly by the
award dismissed the
appheafioe. ” petition.
petition is filed on 16.12.2008 calling in
q.;¢-sm.1: dated 2.3.2007. In the first place,
V -Vthe deiay in ffling the Writ petition is not
H K In the absence of even a plausible
—-.T.’.~e:}A’qj>I.>a¥.:’iat:io;:1 for the delay the petition deserves to be
‘ A “”:,VVV6.iemissed at the threshold, for delay and latches:
g
..5..
*9
3. Having had a glimpse at the awazfd
that the petitioner was employed and he1.{i?’:t..’~?i:e K
of trust whose honesty and i§§}t6g_i’ii’._'[
requirements, the very fact; that aillowiedi -‘
two passengers to travei in
faxes, discloses his ’employer
would have to s_L_1fi’er action of the
checking é ” petitioner is not
a matter tiiat Vtvith leniency. On
the other “such nature deserves to
be dealt Witt; View of mind is
st}_pported§gt)uy’it.he the Apex Court in Regional
Hotilai 2003(3) SOC 605, and
* host of-other deeisiens.
“4, award impugned in my considered
isivefl merited fully justified and does not call
‘intetference. The reasons, findings and conclusions
at by the Labour Court is not shown to have
, J
5 ,
1
,6.
occasioned gave injustice to the petitioner .
intcrferenoe. The writ petition_ ,is__wit§t:{}i1t—i}:;:c§i’itV”anti ‘ *
accordingly rejected. ~