3%'
§:';m§'%% _ _
"THE MA.N"A€3EM'ENr.0F KSPRC
_ REP. BY I'lfS'D{'¥iSiONAL CONFROLLER
IN THE HIGH comm' or-' KARNATAKA AT BANG4§i;G'Fé'E:: f.
DATED THIS THE 13111 my 01:' NQVEMMR ~ _ _: "
BEFORE
THE !~iON'BL§3 MR. JUSTICE I{'S'BOPA§ii§'.F§ K
wan' PETITION N0.
BETWEEN :
sRiRKRIsHNAMUR'i'HY 3 . -
S/O1ATESRI.RANi§;-EIAH i
AGED ABOUr__6:'-$35233'. 'V ._ .
R/AT N<3.148s3/Cries, . ' "
6TH CROSS, K'R...V-mam
MYSORE§'?{3'r3£)8if, " *
PETYPIONER
(By srmi: Mafimm .N'«KI}Li{RRNI, ADV. FOR SR1 v.s. NAIR)
M23932»; D1'$iI310:~&,"'
MYSORE.
RESPONDENT
” 5i-Bgr ;~;~;r_in: KS BHARATH KUMAR, ADV. 3
% L
a.-
Q
THIS wan’ PETFPEON IS FILED UNDER AR’f’ICLES’_’226″~8s3′
22? GE THE cowgrmmon OF INDIA, wrru A PR5?’-E.R.__TO;§_
QUASH THE AWARD passer) BY THE xuousmmz.;-zwaxau-arA;,,_’-«T ~
MYSORE IN REF’.NO.46/2005 171′. 13.7.2007, THE ‘carerimsn _
COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS-‘AN”f€E’§{URE”D, ‘
BY wmcn THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HA3 REJECTE1) fr:-{E
CLAIM 0? THE PETPTIONER WHICH IS ARBETRARY,
AND AGAINST’ THE SCHEME OF I’.D.é’;C’F; DiRE’C;’i’«. ‘i’,I_~I’i~.? *
RESPONDENT TO RE.S’i’0RE- ,’m_E BNSIC PA,’:'” or 1132*
PE’I’]’i’lONER W}THO{}T REDUC§i\!C}’~..!_’I’ BY ._3′ gm-:.RE.1_u’Err:*AL
STAGES Wm-I CUMULATIVE EFFE.cT~._ ‘ir?ITH’, ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
This Writ Pctitien heatrm g in
‘B’ group , this day, the :
The ‘ps.:_i:i’tipner’ -is{‘vs%3rki11g as a Tzafic Cmzmoilcr
in » : cut. The respondent»
certain misconduct against the
he had despatched the velxicle which
mac! {mm Mangaiorc to Madurai shmmn” g
11umbc1’ of passengers as 3 as against 55
in the bus. 011 checking at Kakakcrla, it was
that thcm was nonjiasuc cf tickets to 33 paasengcm.
P.
It is on that basis, it was alleged that the same V’
pilfcmge. On the said charge, fhfi~’d0.mcSfit3
held against the petitioner herein it:
Enquiry Ofificer submitting A .thcu t 1e§s7’1A1_:(1i”I’1’ii»:s:i1t-
Management maxed the qxjder at 1999
ixnposing the punishment bf mere’ ments
with cuxnuiafive efihzjt. , &
2. T}1c;;~”-‘ii-c;j;’§2biac:1£a:r:1:-V ii3A:.”$i;?:¥3.’?..§:n:’V::§;a1e13t1y raised a
dispute 3;fiA1dGUV€V if the same to tlm Lalzrour
Court undei»secm£n_ iqipfgig eat’ the Industrial Disputes Act
_ Vida: 057: The respondent appeared and filed
gxtiztacment against the claim statement filed by
at: issue relating to the validity of the
V Vt _ domésfic was considered as a pm issue and
W ” ” 1,gbour”com by its oxdar dated 30.33307 held the same
and proper. Thczeafimr, the Labour Court
pmeccdf§ ed te consider the matter on merits and by its award
” dated 13.7.2007 xegecaxglzthe reference as being devoid of
merit. The pcfitéoner is therefore berm this own’ 5&:i.-s’°_*> ”
3. On hearing the ibr ehé i”
have perused the wxtit papers isxipugncd
in this petition. ‘A ‘ A H
4. tfia isfiic the domesm
enquiry as 31:41′ heki ho be flair and
proper. : Theze fissile which was Iaiaed be-foxe
the Lahour”‘–s:g:u;1ze1§g;ra to the delay in raising the
clzi.-3’1:>1;t:_§.’V The has advertnd to this mattsr in
V. &:.a t”issue was held against the management and
merits was considcmd by the Labour
In this mgmi, the Labour Court noticed the
wevieticncc tzzndered by Smt. Anuradha as MW} who was the
~ «’ Estab1isI3ment Supcfintendcnt of the mspomlent –
.L
‘r.
5
Managcmexnt. The documents market} at Ex.M1 to .4
also 1;1ot:teed’ by the Labour Court. ‘l’hc1caficr–,’:t’
valid’ ity 01′ the domestic enquiry had 33%, » u u
Court: was of the View that in
repozt tendered by the cnquixy
said documents had and
3 finding had bean documents.
As such, it was of the ‘Limposing the
punishment J _
6. N€2._de=1.1l$i,_ the Labour Court notmm” ‘ g
V these; ggspects, I mg view that it cannot be said that the
V. in any event. Hawcvcr, one aspect of
tiiz: was required to be considered by the
_ C-ailirt considering the gavcncss of the charge
Vpfinishmant that has been imposed is that the
Court: ought to have ocrnsidereci the explanation put
by the pcfitioncr fimt pmty, with regard to the
A” ~ of such an Emcidcnt having occurred.
1:
q.’ In tlim regard, it was mntcnded that the ”
from the place where the hafiic J
bus. Therefore, it was caonfi:-.1:;dedv4″th:at at
dispatch eonect number of paszsfl avm.
has been nomad’ and flue uaa’ I
ticketlcss passengens if has between
the said of the Trafic
Cantmllf-:;f. –_ * plausible explanation at
least. for the proportionality of the
that extent, I am of the View that
punishment by withholtfmg two m(:re:in’ cuts
. 4 not’ the earning of the petitiomr but also
tcmainai benefits. Therefore, to that cxiaent, the
‘ bade; modified hokiing that the index’ of imposing of
of two incmments is upheld but the 3%
:~ shou.Id not be with cumjgafiw cfiicct.
fiance, with the above observations and ‘7 * ‘
the petition stands disposed of with no order as — ._