«_HV'.'S..F{i£ia:{;aiah,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23"" DAY OF JULY 2009-&_
BEFORE
"mg HONBLE MR..ms'r1CE HU LU u
WRIT P1m'rIoN N0.4QL()1e * ' LIQ '
Karnataka State Road
Transpmt Cerperation, .
Bangalore Centmi £)ivi3'io2:,.. ;
Bangalore by its '- _ . '
Divisiona} Cont;ce'}l__er, '
Rcprcs;:ntveVd'~bi;i*'i;*§:§::v_ V _ "
Chie£vLaw"Gf15V¢er.:"fV" _ ...PETITIONER
(By Sm:1{1;R;12e;;g;k§;a,&}Aci1gg;;%%
w'S€o* VSidcIali,fig§tp;;a,
" . Aggd abéat 5.'?§?ears,
149.352, I Cmfis,
Manse-shwafa Layout,
Bangal9ic--58. "RESPONDENT
‘{B§f}Sri.V.S.Naik & Smt.Manjula.N.Kulkami, Advs.)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 cf
the Censtimtien of India praying I0 quash the award made it;
I.D.No.26f04 dt.l7.l0.05 (Anx.H) passed by the ‘__ncipal
Labour Court, Bangalore.
This Writ Petition coming on for final
the Ceurt made the following:
ORDER1i:i
This petition is by the Miimigamenf award
passed by the labour ;i:°)aI§.~gélL:rc,,iiii:. dated
17.10.05. _ V i i ii V
service of the petitioner-
Ct_”)l’p(i)iiiI’_£’11Zg0.i_l1 “1 974 as a bedli conductor and from
i980_ hisiiiisatrjiiceu’é,vfis,_ireéi13a1iscd. Aileging that on 7.10.03
‘W’§}ii6?,}1.6 was onitiuig? as a Conducter in the has plying frmn
Siiimoga he had manipulated the entries changing
{he last as 163 instead (}f 125 0fRsii00f- dencaminatiezz
n ¥.?«{ith aiiiintentinn to cause less to the Management 1:63 the tune sf
1,50fif- an enquiry was held and he was disnnisised fmm
service, as against which? he raised a eiéspizte before the iabour
Cmzrt. The labnur Ceurt after enquiry came tn the conclusion
k/
that these was no such dishonest intention (if misappropfiatioii
en the part of workman and it was for the Manage;iieiit_i’t{)
establish that he willfuily abstained from ~
proceeds of :5 tickets of Rs.1{)0f- dentiminatieiiiié iiiio1i;é’ingV_V ”
that the order of dismissal is toe
reinstateinent, with continuity efasiervicei & ..5€)%’_: Wiiges. ii
The same is assailed by this
‘of the teamed Cmmsel fopthe
peti§i.e11er-Nteiiageziieii-:_9the workman had 15 tickets with him
” 333 i’i2tenti0ii””t(ii recycle them and although he had
:_aeeei13ite<i ittie.ziaid tickets in the waybili. the possession of the
tirgketesiiews that he had an intentien to recyeie them.
5.. Pei’-eentra, the learned Ceunsei fer the workman has
H submitted that the labour Court as a matter ef fact finding
authority has noted that workman hagkrryorded in the way bill
enquiry report failed to pay his advertance to what is being
elicited in the cr0ss-examination of the Management wéttzesses
and the tickets which were alleged to have been the
workman were not confiscated during the chec¥t’~;:§ndiV’_ethei’e
no explanatien for non~confiscatic-ii the
ticket book. Basically the Ma1:.a_:gen1ie:x_tll’tvimeseetlnzits
was not at all present in the when the reported
to the depot afier ceni:plet1ing2.j_> __and there is non-
appreciation oftlze matefial etfildenee thellenquinng authority
and tlieilenqzfify ott§’eef’*hes aimeiled to perese the waybiil and
as sueix, l the by the enquiry officer is witheut
apg:;li.cetiee ‘c,t_’.lmiVnd and tinder misconception.
V offact finding the labour Cmztt has come
to”the-..’eonelusiee that there was no intention on the part of the
” worlclzlzéan te misappropaiate the amount and the waybil! was not
checked and also that at the time of checking the Assistant
H Traffic Superintendent failed to confiscate those tickets. It
appears there is a lapse on the part of the Mmagemeet
326/
authorities in not discharging their duty properly while
identifying the irregularities. If the tickets were at
the time of checking by the Assistant
there would have been any seopefii ‘1;iresu.me_:i.iliai$’tlie~ ‘ ; 2
have been recycled. In the circumetaiiceis, theieider ‘by
the labour Court for reinstaifeiiihent’
service cannot be iziiiiiiaiiiiirding back
wages is concerned, erder of the labour
‘Ceurt it itiflilismis.-sal till the order
of for 30% of back wages
insteacliiiof It is 1’ ed that the wcarkman
during ‘the ii matter ins attained the age of
‘ ll{iwem~r, it is for the Management to settle his
_ E$:;i1ei”;t:i’*i1,fiilxini_tiv~’4e months’
ii9,.iXceoic§ngly, petition is allowed in part.
Sfififi
Judge
Bkp.