%%<I3;»= sri %%%%% 14 « I:xch1sni§1!__fFIibi1ni;i§. lvij;-fsbre. _ I jv 'fggfiévsaringz T '"* Petitim1 is by me workman assailing the award passed by the . V " muamal tribunai, Mysore in Remzs/2002. IN THE men coungr 01$ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE _ Dated this the 27*' day orsuiy, 2909 J Before V my HUMBLE MR Jvsmrs Hvzzzvwg G; u may Puma' ' a 20147; 22905 :j(L.,§) By Sri H L Sutcndra, 53 yrs Sic iate H M Lingappa " Driver, KSRTC; Hassan Depot &,----Divisio1:-"" ~. L '-- Rfa if 14, Rajaghatla, near Railway Station _ V " ~ (By Ms Subbarao & Co.5'A§iv.) % I'; V And: Kamataka stém mad' By the Division:s1_Controi1er _ _ ' Hassan V Rmpondent » Writ 'Péfizion is filed under A.rt.226:'227 of the Constitution paying .85 *fl1s._a§am'd dated 3.112604 in Ref. 12323002 by the ?'éiition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the ORDER
W,
The charge levelled against the workman is, he being a driver pf the
bus, unanthoriseaily collected fare of 1231.25 each from ten
travelling from Hosur to Kadidavalfi, enquiry was held and .
imposed with the penalty of withhelding one u “‘ ‘V
such, werkman raised a dispute and on 1 A’
Tribune} confirmed ihe order imposing pm2.g1_nment; X :e1§”%A;;;~1§;;en.
Heard the counsel mprweefing tlaespettiihea.
According to the petitionefe pei§fiet1fe,c _V.was eiigaged in
driving the bus and he.vsir:ie a boarded the bus
from the reaiivvside ii is the duty of the conductor to
issue tickets. neit.*:er”eol¥eei:e§i”tf;e amount nor is he responsible for
issuing ticfnets, he prayed for setting aside the erder of
for the respondent — management submitted that
i ,. is me s”:3Vte’t-.*:er:t of the passengers for the petitioner having collected the
4: also, when the bus was checked ten passengers were found with
“tickets and their statement corroborates the fact 01′ ceilectisng the amount.
W,
3
What is noticed is, aitheugh petiiitmer was net a conductor, but he has
allawed the passengers to travel in the cabin. He has 3150 <;0lles;Vto'1::i""fl3_e
amount firom them. Labour Court has given a finding on _
when meaieriai evidence is there to say {hat the "is " b
misconduct, imposition of minor pcnaity of
two years cannot be said to be dispropo11i_onatc."~.{)'itVmcritsj fhé
Court has found the workman guilty of a;r2d_ be
intexiéred With. *
. , . 3 ~, -:_ , €"'r V
Petition1s§d1sn";1s.sez1.–;-_ '- Q I'
& T*1d9e