IN THE HIGH COURT OF
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAYIOFANOIIIEIIIHERI 2009 V'
BEFOII?iI$ " I
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTjOE RAM .'RE'II)DYI'
WRIT PETITIoN_Ro. 29'.Ii2A1IOE 20O9'--(L~§'E{SRTC)
BETWEEN
s/O.TsLIBBAiArsI 'V ' ' .
AGE 56 YEARS "
NO.84II';'€3i,:"2NDAVIIéi£IIN' -ROAD '
BYRAVESWARA_ NAGAR. _'
NAG21\RABHAV'i~ M.AI'I\I
BANGAIORE _ PETITIONER
{BY SR1. G' NARASI REOOY, ADV}
__I -- ifIv_IAI*§IAG_5e::MENT OF BANGALORE
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT
.OO'RI>ORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD, BANGALORE A 27
" _ _E5Y ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
A. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC CONTROLLER
& DISC IPLENARY AUTHORITY"
B M T C CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD, BANGALORE -~ 27. RESPONDENTS
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ‘
THE AWARD OF’ LABOUR COURT DATE 24.4.2009’e’l5}1SSED
IN I.D. NO. 285/1999 AS PER ANNMA; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F’O1.LOV\/’INGV:__ ‘ A
The petitioner e a_conduc~’;or~ in th–e..r’espond’eni>–cg
Road Transport. Corporation to have
comznitted the tickets
bearing Nos_.734$2.0,;._:–.. 734522 of
denominatli.onl:.1:”i 5: V A A three passengers,
tiravellingl Bangalore Bus Station on
21.8.ll9§7- Jfisaid tickets were sold and
accounted trip No.2 against stages ‘7 and 6 in the
1V.sAia3r_v’/Aniiltgvlrnaintained by the petitioner. The checking
checked the bus found 16 passengers,
sleifgeld the tickets, secured the statement. of passengers,
A ‘e~nter”ed their remarks in the way bill and issued an
offence memo and submitted a report to the disciplinary
authority who initiated disciplinary proceedings by
issuing the articles of charge foilowed by hoidinbfi
permitting the parties to adduce evidence QfT’4(‘V’i’:3V~Vli~2<:()1-'V1"».,1';1'1€
charge. On remand. the petitioner was__'exaniiin'ed.'_fas'
wwzi and marked three docuihent's has \?\g"1.:Vt'o.lNv3'.:V'Wh'ileb7. it
for the respondent, two T. witnesses were."_iAeXa:nine'd has
MWs–2 and 3 and eleven'V"i'€.'.1:VV:£..3"cu'1;ne1Vit:V3_"'vv*sre.'lvrtiarl<ed
M1 to M11. The to the
material on Arecordifl the evidence
both oral to accept the
explanation:_u_o;tier'ed that the tickets in
the ihandsV.Voi"='the'thragggfgassengers were actually picked
up by tile the floor of the bus was and
a llli~dlQg that the charge of reissue of tickets to
' 'of"c1'6passengers in the bus was proved. Keeping
".ifi*'mind'ejjth;eV'fact that the petitioner Was imposed with
niiiior; punishments on 118 occasions in the past. did
_ not find favour to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction
under Section l1–A of the Act to interfere with the
quantum of punishment and accordingly, by the award
dt. 24.4.2009 Annexure —- A rejected the reference.
12%
Hence this petition invoking Article F1116:
Constitution of India.
3. Judicial review _ id.
Constitution of India cannot extend to exam’i;natio’n
of the correctness or reaso1nableness~.ofia5 decision as a
matter of fact. The purpose a.of_ judicial review is to
ensure that the individ1.1al._ rece’iv,es”w.’fai’r treatment and
not to autho’rity”””after according fair
treaitmentt»t?each§es, matter which it is authorised by
law to Vdecide,.a:.:con–clusion which is correct in the eyes
of.–Court4.” Judicial “review is not an appeal from a
_d’ecision”U.but allllllfeview of the manner in which the
A V.decis.i’e.n’ isftifziade.
Having noticed the above limitation of the
V ” judicial review, the contention advanced by the learned
‘counsel for the petitioner that the three passengers
travelling from K.R.Puram to Bangalore Bus Station, in
possession of reissued tickets had picked them frombglt:
-6-
floor of the bus, in my opinion, in gmd
circumstances cannot be count.enanc_ed/,_ Labour
Court in the premise of the eyidlefjnce {tile 3
Checking official, who chegtkedll’ bursa’
statement of the passengerslthe ‘ticl{_ets Were issued
by the petitioner his duties as a
conductor each of them.
The boarded the bus at
of the route, to alight at
BaIig§alorell.t3’us:-.:Station’;”-.ti1e terminus, and the bus was
checked a after K.R.Puram, when only 16
passveiigers lW’ere____travelling out of Whom 3 possessed the
‘ If truly the three passengers had
” picked tickets from the floor of the bus, there is
no eiiplanation forthcoming as to why the petitioner did
issue tickets to the said passengers at the place of
boarding i.e. the starting point for the trip. The
explanation offered is nothing but a. ruse to get over the
charge of reissue of tickets and is unacceptable to a
but
reasonable and rational mind. The Labour was
fuliy justified in rejecting the explanationtitterediithe
petitioner.
5. The next contentionA:t.hat_Athe
held reissued tickets not and the
statement of MW-.2;.,_the:’checi§.ing._AofficiaiA Was hearsay
and unacceptable. This identical
contention; carrieg ‘-con_sVideration before the
Ape}: tttt Ijdelihi _’£’ransport Corporation —v-
shyamiaii, vz1§’e§j1.e¢i’ii:wais held thus:
he state_nf_1_evnt made by the petitioner who
excess money to the checking officer
vvis:”‘not-‘the nature of hearsay evidence.”
In Very same judgment, the Apex Court observed
A since the appellants misconduct of nonmissue of
tickets was proved, it cannot be said that the
‘ r__:2.ue4) 2; sec 83 M
punishment of dismissal was disproportionate’sincethe
misconduct was one of dishonesty.
6. In KARNATAICA-..§TA1’1i”‘RQA§’V”
CORPORATION vs. hiya Division
Bench of this the passengers
statement contains.-‘the it would
be a had collected
the it with an intention to
.. ‘i It is further observed that a
condocior from passengers and not
actcotiiit.ingV.’i”or.t_h_e_same to the credit. of the corporation
‘ V:VV’sh0tv1id~ti1ofvbe permitted to continue in the services of
” the corfiorajtion.
7. in North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation -v- S.S.Poleshi3, it was heici that in a
domestic enquiry strict and sophisticated rules of
3 2003(2) KLJ :25 (DB) M
evidence under the Indian Evidence Act _Wo’uld.v not
apply. In addition, it was observed
allergy to hearsay evidence p__rovi_ded L4
nexus and credibility. The
was some evidence or in the
sense of the technical ruieAs_:-governing»v–.regular court
proceedings but in way as men of
understanding accept, was the
observation” f “the Divisi’oI_1
A8. ” ‘I”h_e”..last’~.___o’fv”‘the contention that minor
on 118 occasions in the past
_canri”ot a factor to impose a major punishment of
ufiolfrthe act of misconduct held proved is also
vvét_tho_u’t.rr£erit. I say so because the petitioner ought to
.’ .r haveheen circumspect in the discharge of his duties as
-“conduct after having been imposed with minor
‘punishments on 118 occasions in the past for similar
misconducts. Having thrown all caution to wind. the
320()0{=i) KL] 53:; {:33} M
rIlIl[1v
petitioner discharged his duties in such a ma.nne1f_V_that
caused loss to the exehequer of the
Transport Corporation, which» is .’tni’sa’pprop*riat.ioi’1.
involving the employees eonfidlenee’ in thelpe:titiorier§l’i1.e_’
9. The Apex court” in Mo’hé1nlf&VlV’
Gupta4 held that taking alvlenlient Vlr€1Vl:\,\,fiS ‘tam//’alled for
more so, in the loss inlthe employee
when act of rnisappronriatviorio» Vefstalolished. So also
in lliI.P+Eleefri¢ity’ Jagdish Chandra Sharma5
(2005]3’g_§3iCC ” C Apex Court frowned upon the
ir1_t&erIei’enceV” ~ the Labour Courts on irrational or
‘xext1’arieous~..factors or on compassionate grounds and heid
._ “thatV’su’eh i.njtei’ie1’ence was only capricious and arbitrary.
2 x Having examined the award. the Labour Court was
AA ‘l1″u_}_}:y gustifiecl in recording a conclusion that the (:hai’ge
against the petitioner was proved and having regard to the
j’ (20o0)9 see 521 M
~* (:20o5;3 sec am
authoritative pr0110L1r1Cem.em of the Apex CO1lI’i”‘i~E1’ mahcer
of interference in exercise of extraordinary.j_11f:;–sdiciii~oI1 uhder
11–A of the Act was f11r1herj11.stfVfJ’1e>(Vib’ir1 §ie.¢1ir1i1[1.eg»’i(;.gihohheoxby 7,
holding that the punishment 0f’eii.sf1’1i_ssaI
commensurate with the gravi’$y “uf misee held firoved. V
The writ Ihierhivt and is.
h jmee