fl.P.No.g§4§[2_(;_0§
I! THE HIGH COURT OF' KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7"' DAY OF JULY 2008
BEFORE
THE Horrsm §!R.JU8TICE H.e.nAmm1jai f
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF'
M] s. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION _
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CO,N.'I'ROLL-EP._ "
BANGALORE CENTRAL Divasxew 5
K.G.BUS STATIDN COMPLEX" ~ -.
SUBHASHNAGAR -- V A _
BANGALORE -- 560 009 . - _ A_,.;°z:'r:'rxomn
{BY MS. Kfs:1§:sH;i.*1%A FDR Dsm N;§<;.12A}&':s:*sH,
V.S.VENKAT-ESHALU '
S/0 V.SEENAPPAA(I.A'}'E)"f ,_
AGED ABOUT 5@,YEAVRS__ ~~
ANDARNAE-EALLI AT. PATREMLHALLI
- r,:H1Km3ALLA1=uR TALIJK, .
A K0-l..AR'D'-DiS*I'T?.IC"F«& ..nxspom3nx'r
V £133! BAEASAVARAJU AND SR1 s.B.MUKKAm~zAPPA,
* ADVfgf)QAfl'ES.)
_ 'FHIS..__WRi'5f* 1=17m*1o:~1 IS FILES UNDER ARTICLES 226 83
227 ore' Ti.-.IEAi£',<31'~ISI'I'I'LI'FION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
§MPUG!'€ED AWARD AT ANNEXA. D1'. 3.7.2005 PASSED
'3? 1'1-ma; PRINCIPAL LABOUR coum', BANGALORE, IN
=_IT.D."1~:::),1_§;/2001.
THIS PE'I'I'I'ION COMING OR FOR HEARING THIS DAY.
VT :fI'HF: COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-g..
§
ORDER
This writ petition by the Karnataka State
Transport Corporation is directed against the
dated 03.07.2005 (Annexure–~A) passed by the *
Labour Court, Bangalore, an 1.o.Ng.ee1e/2oe)i.00
inlllufiled award, the Labour :00
petition filed by the
under Section 10(4—A) Gf,§I1e ._
1947, as amended in setfing
aside the ordegf 16.12.2000
passed by by directm g
his re1’ns§:.*atemtLtVit’v — ‘ “post with continuity of
service but 0 .
2. I’ hays ‘V11:-{a1flt”<i'1 the learned counsel for the
fafici the impugnecl award at
respondent–worma11 was working
as a with the petitioner-Corporation and on
0. while he was conducting the bus from
to Calicut, it was subjected to a check at
0 The said check resulted in initiating a
3&7
W,P.flg,2fi4§£fl 5
disciplinaxy enquiry against the respondent-Workman.
The charge memo issued to the respondent-workmax}
in that behalf reads as follows:
‘I That out of 47/ 7 i1’avellt’fl9 ~
bus at the time of check, V
issued ticket to a
Mysore to Mcmdya, nor» .
fare of Rs.11/- with
pizfer the s.’_r.
loss to the gain
for yoursezt mmmain
absolutg. aeman ao duty in
discm{kg;rc§bfi;’«:urscz;;:y
II. puram-s%o:; tripway bill
No.1s5o292; % found that you have
of Rs.15-00 by aEtermg’
Ak .g§l6»’§i?1§¥.t;uml5éf’471 as 463 and sale figure 9
A Stage No.33 & reissued the
III. on return :aumey’ (from Calicut) you
» have failed to show the sale of 10 tickets of
.Rs.15/- denomination which were issued as
eonzbimztion tickets fiom Stage No. 43 in CWB
No. 1560548.
e
IV. You have mentioned R.s.15/- denomination
closing number as 436 instead of 476 from ._
Stage No.50 to 56 in CWB No.1560547. ‘ i
The disciplinary enquiry resulted in diSI}1iSSé’ii:”Oi:”. ‘
respondent-«workman from
16.12.2000. Being aggrieved
dismissal, the respondent-wofisiziaan,
filed a petition under Section “of.tA(‘.-t before
the Labour Court. The
of the matter, x:respondeI1t–
worlunan by not issuing
ticket to -the had not entered the
sale of tic«k”ct__s” and caused incorrect
.» the that the order of dismissal
iwasinst By way of punishment, the Labour
but granted reinstatement
‘ with of service. It is relevant to refer to the
“reasoning of the Labour Court in the
it award:
‘1 7. First party never disputed the allegation of
NINC with regard to 1 childpassenger. Rightfmm
W/-
A’ ‘rtifisgputed He has given some
these Neither the
eeetwaybiafsy tallying with the number ofpassengers
bus in the previous 1: is may
at raypaneses of the Disctplinary Authority to hoid
eetfiefirstpwiy guflty of voluntafily tampenny’ the
t waybilltomake itlegalgaing the basisforsuch
_ 5 –
W.E,BQ.2584§[20(}5
the beginning, his contention was, it was a child
passenger; the accompanying adult
was reluctant to buy ticket for this Child _
there is some variance between the % _
given by the first party in thewenaa f
charge sheet and the show
explanations are not
The number of passengers is:
contradicted by him
47/7 passengers, iicketless
passengem is ‘net record-emit ” rs
collected by ‘ the
checking during his
Vsafgvgestxbn put by
the passenger; the
common prudence.
found in the waybflt 1’3
Trcgfic Controller had germs’ a the
fiwmg$thmfiw fwwmflw
.. 7 –
}fl.E.[9g.2§45[fi§
sustained. Hence, I answer the 2′” issue in the
negative. ‘
13. On has own admission, the 3
caused by the firstpwty in not issuing
to a Child passenger and not envterr’:zgA thiex .’ V
that the order of dismissed ‘not jiiet
party has to sufier the
has committed. 151 my to
his original post and
without bacawejgges ends of
justice being e . L e
in the waybill is established *1 meme
3. On in my opirfion, the
modxfi’ catvm’. _ fixnadc bythe Labour Chm
to; be or bIe so as to
under the extraordmaxy’
Court under Articles 226 & 227 of
‘ H ” ‘T i’ 4.” of India.
dismissed. S
I udqé
Sh]/—Ata