IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER. C2969
BEFORE
THE I-ION~j3LE MR. JUSTICE REDDY ' 'D M'
WRIT PETITION NO.13738;":OF';'_'2€;03*{fi;«KSR'f§]'
BETWEEN
1 KARNATAKA STATE ROAD'TRANSPORT__
cORPORAT1ONv*~._ .2 " "
MYSORE RURAL"Pwf\f,IS.{ON,:, " j, _
MYSORE BY ITS DWISIONAL _»C._ONfT,ROLLER
REP BY ITS' CHI:EI*"LA'N OF~I:?'ICER. " " PETITIONER.
[By Smt ER' 1; . " V'
ALNLDL; .... ..
1 VICE PRTSi_:2ENT_ _ -- J
KSRTC STAFF AND. WORKERS UNION
MTSORE DIWSION
POST OFF1CE'ROAD,
' " E.ANNIMANTA;E>,' MYSORE. RESPONDENT.
1' «.{E3- :TA::SHMAi§§'RAO, ADV.)
. ' This :59ET1T1ON FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE..AwARD OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE
_ "31. 12.2007 IN REF NO.7»4~/2006 {ANNEXURE G}.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
ATEHEARINC IN 'E' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
_..FOLLOWING :
53%
'}
O R D E R
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
aggrieved by the award dated 31-12-2007 in Reference
No.74/ 2006 of the Industrial Tribuna1,_.~~.VMysore
Annexure~”G”, ailowing the Claim petition’i?i1ed”V:?jyT
respondent — driver by setting a_si<:1f:_ 3'0; 2
09-1991 of the Disciplinary
punishment of Withho1dii3___§*~.. of one 'i.ncrei:nei'1t
cumulative effect and,directi1"ig'p_payment' oi'–ar;'ears, has
presented this petitiondfd 2'
are that the respondent,
was driyingr the htips»-hearing Registration No.CAF.8917
on, Roiite No.V'1O_V/1 1 from Chikmagalur to Mysore, on 24-
.2 uyvhich when intercepted by the checking
it."_WasV'al1eged that the respondent was carrying,
unauzthorisediy, three ticketless passengers in the
closed H'driver's cabin from Hagare to Hassan [Stage
' 'No.25/24 to 21), after collecting the fare of Rs.4.25/–
M
from each, as disclosed in their statements recorded in
the presence of the driver who was made to pay'th'e.,l_said
fares to the conductor, against
tickets. The checking staff issued' arilzrrerrioull
detailing the irregularities observed..'_'and
Disciplinary Authority the opinilon there" 0
were grounds to enqu,ire olfathe. iniputation
of misconduct, issuedllélan dated 19-07-
1991 setting: the followed by an
order dateid the explanation of the
chonviincing and after holding
the chiargletl. the punishment of reducing
the pay of petitionerlby one incremental stage with
effleéc't;""V The Conciliation proceeding
Union of which the workman was a
menfliber-~ failed, the State Government, in
300"'"'–__l"'~eXercise.0:" of jurisdiction under Section 10 of the
A alnduustrial Disputes Act, by order dated 20-04-2006,
….referred the industrial dispute for adjudication before
Lei
4
the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore, which was registered
as Reference No.74/2006. The respondent entered
appearance. lodged a claim statement, intefipalia
contending that the Secretary of the Union
all the papers relating to the iInpositi._onjjoVf
punishment on the assurance *i;”hat”Ci’isc<1_1s;s'io._r_'1'with 'the
management would lead to; favourable ordeifsgfarid 'when;
no such order came into eiiistence. Va..conciliation was
raised before the Ass_i"stan't Lab0_ur_l"'Cgommissioner and
therefore, there is not,_delay'V.in:_raising;_–,he dispute. In
addit:i_"on[' it.:%Vas':::eontendedéthat the material allegation
of fabricated and fictitious and
thatthe nforl§.112ai–1 hvadsubmitted a reply to the Articles
Qf"f:Cha,1'ge"t-denyingthe charges. That claim was resisted
by statement dated 12-11«~2o07 of the
responydelnjtr interalia contending that the reference of the
Induzstrfal dispute after 15 long years. without showing
it 'trgsufficient cause was highly belated and suffered from
" ~—delay and latches, while seeking to support the order
ttfi
impugned, therein, as being wel1–rnerited, fully justified
and not calling for interference. In addition, state:'d,'t'h_at
the documents pertaining to the case were not
as the case was Very old and th;e.».e)'r;trae:'t"o"fllVV
Control Register disclosed the of
names of the checking as.VVAllV.{ell–T'as the"
punishment imposed; _ Beforeilthe"-Industrialribunal,
the petitioner exa1n'in_edl Sltiiixfaltingappa, the
Supervisor in lVIW–1 who was
cross–eXaInined.""an_d» the respondent was
examined" \:ETVr7–"l~.pVV"'whence he produced four
docunients W–l to W–4. The
Industrial lTrihunal,A'inll'the premise of the pleadings of
'' V'~v.parties;.j-~.haying "considered the material on record
.iriclu'ding:pthe–.etzidence both oral and documentary, held
thattthge were not proved and by the award
set aside the punishment and directed
:l'pay:n;»ent of arrears.
tsvi
6
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner advances the
following contentions:
(1)
[ii]
Sufficient cause was not shown for the
inordinate delay of 15 years in
dispute and therefore, the refe1*er1ce*aVb3i;
State Government was in «1je’spect”of_ a V ‘stale.
claim suffering from by
that the Labour””t?Tot!.rt “fe’l’l._V_ii1a not
recording’ point’ of delay and
latches glea in the
* stjatelimeiiti V by
Q «.Hadre’s1§onrient raised the dispute at the
i4″eavrlie.s’t of time, the petitioner would
ahavefllhladl the benefit of establishing the
” for the first time before the Industrial
~’_fl’rlibunal by producing relevant material
constituting substantial legal evidence of the
charges;
5
2
E
9 I
\
(iv) That the respondent «~« Driver having not
pleaded as a fact that an appeai-._4d_v:as
preferred against the order imp.i1;gnr::Ci’.
Regional Manager, KSRTC, it
could not have led “eViderieei’ove.r_
oral assertion. it ”
(V) That the i-award.=ii11pt1§iie.d arbitrary and
illegal.
4- Ptfit. the respondent -~ workrnan impugned as being
we11~rii_eri.ted;’d’~fi3_iI3′ and not calling for
interfererice. is contended that the order
impesing the ” ‘–p1,1i1iS11InCI1t is contraiy to Regulation
Karnataka State Road Transport
H 8: D) Regulations, 1971, since the
Disciplinavrv Authority, in exercise of discretion, did not
it reeord reasons to dispense with the enquiry and
it imposed the punishment. It is next contended that the
trite
failure on the part of the Appellate Authority in not
disposing off the appeal, Exhibit W–3 preferred..VVag_:ai=hst
the order of punishment, the respondent
initiated conciliation proeeedingsat theea1″liest”‘point.t_of
time. Lastly it is contended that1’_’_th’ree’.st:i:dents.,,3i7ith
passes, were aceommodate_d~».__in the driVer”s_:”CaTt:in, to.’
travel from Hagare to Hassanhonl’humanitarian ground,
as the bus was full of
5. ‘__.’Ere:ard counsel for the
examined the award
impuvgnedi to the material on record,
there in the submission of the
leaijned counsel: for the petitioner that the delay of 15
» ;yeaIrs.:_in ‘rat-sing the dispute and referring the same for
was not explained satisfactorily. In the
Clainfstatement filed by the respondent, except for
stating that the papers were handed over to the
v’;Seeretary of the Union who assured that the mtter
would be taken up with the Management for discussion,
in a bilateral forum, and that the Union was as.su.red by
the Management that orders would be
reconsideraton, and hence the ,..U»nion_-“vva*s:’_’vavvaiting ax?
favourable order and further as nothing’.hap’pened,”l’the
dispute was raised, is bu.t'””a_ bald Vasser’tion”‘~dex:oid of’
material particulars. find “order; imposing
punishment ExhibitEV\:f«’–_;i is_V(iia§’tefiti4e’~f5V.tl%O9–1991 while the
reference of ‘ibrladjudication, to
the Industrial is dated 20-
cannot but be said to be
fatalzto the more so in the absence
of Vsatisfaetorgrexplanation. The evidence of WW-1 is
A aiseifginteres’te’d testimony, not corroborated by the
evide;n»cge” ‘loaf lithe office bearers of the Union which
cause of the respondent. In the absence
AA of “relevant material constituting substantial legal
evidence of the fact that the delay was due to the action
of the petitioner — Management in not reconsidering the
tit
:2
interference as delay defeats equity and on that score
alone, the respondent — Driver was not entitleddio. any
relief at the hands of the Industrial Tribunai:”*- «l if
9. The Industrial Tribunal, as is objVlioVus:.l_ffroInl’theV ‘
award impugned, having adverlteldgtogg if
the petitioner over the delay and”-latehes,V.~fLell. error
surmising and making a oxrler’Vthe’f§cause for
the delay. It is may be
inferred when fron1….t_he justify the
inference._ not to have
surrnisedil guessed but had to draw
inferencem frorn facts so long as they are
legitin1’ate Having regard to the patent
» ;rni_stai<es'«committed by the Industrial Tribunal and a
'-total in:-isdirection and misconception on vital and
relelvjalnt facts, necessitates interference with the award
2 * pugned.
F
<<«-'/
:3
10. On an examination of the contentions
advanced by the respondent — workman the
Industrial Tribunal, I find the Whole
to be built upon no-n–eXistent
arguments to stem from fallieiouse avssiiniptiotis’-.i.___ ifhe
respondent — work1nan;’«._._With’o-ut vp1a’ci1%1g..,_Vvifeievant
material before the might
throw light upon ‘inp’id_puestion, sought to
obtain a decision material and
i1’1f’01T’1’l’1a1§i;_().;’li at pro ‘ Wvinforgmed decision
requires; respondent — Driver obtained a
decision: pe1*v..i:§norv1edge.
_In t}1eV_:VreshLi1t;”. Writ petition is allowed. The
Aat}§z.a’§;rci,”sw.d2:ted :§14’12;2007 in Reference No.74/2006 is
reference by the State Government
sta__nds~ ected.
sd/~
IUDGE