Loading...
Responsive image

North East Karnataka Road … vs Chinna Khasim on 26 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
North East Karnataka Road … vs Chinna Khasim on 26 March, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2671" DAY OF MARCH 2008

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICE SUBHASH B-$331    '

BETWEEN:

North East Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation
Raichur Division, Raichur.

By its Bivisional Controller 

Represented by its
Chief Law Omcer.

(By Smt. H. R. Rcnukéx, 

AND:

Chinna Khasim '

S/o. Nagappa V
Aged about 39"3%eax's,  A
R/o. Janatha Colony, _ 
Ffost:   A

   "  ..... 

Dist; Raichm-, _ 

(By E3mtL_ 1;at*.$mAé'g:;V~for

  s;B,"Mux1;an;mippa, Adv.)

    PETYFIONER

.. RESPONDENT

 This Petition is filed under Articles 226 8:. 227 of the

 Cot1~31;itt1"tion of India praying to quash the award in
 -~ ._  KID'.-No.646/2000 Dt.O2.04.2004 vide A1111---G by the Labour Court
V"  _Gu1barga, etc.,.

V' W This Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the Court

1 '  ' " mode the following:



-2-
ORDER

An award dated 2.4.2004 in K.I.D.No.646/2000 is ca]1ed’–i_n

question.

2. The respondent is a Conductor. He was cha1}3’*e¥siieete?1 – it

for re-issue of tickets of denomination of RSQQG/.-A_
passengers, who were travelling front
and reissue of 3 tickets of £3
passengers, who were trave1Hng..iiom«VAB;:in§g_.a1o;*ve t0.i’iifld11p’i:1I’ and
failed to get endorsement ‘in this regasd.

an enquixy was heldi     a report,
holding that the    Authority

on the basis of the Enqtiixy Omcer issued Show
cause notice order of dismissal.

, K3. a dispute befom the Labour

;i’The held that the enquixy is fair and

e,_pvroper”. ‘- pexveraity of finding, the Labour Court

iiielied on »§%a.vj Em mar” ked as Ex.MS and found that the entries do

__thei”pi1fe1age of the Corporation revenue, but it only

negligence on the part of the respondent in making the

V r _ eIit;iie’s”i3.nd further found that the dismissal order is harsh and

the punishment to that of denial of three increments

iivithout backwages.

‘fee

:\°%,-__

-3-

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitred
that. the respondent had started from Raichur to

in respect of tickets of 123.20/– denomination. he .

starting entry as 445215 and thereaften when”‘i1e.: ll

Bangalore, he started the entry for tickers
Rs.20/- with 445224. Relying on7th_ese V
Counsel submitted that the tickets bessn -145é1~se%§pl44s224, 9
tickets, which were sold to
Bangalore, were reissued by passengers
travelling from do = lBanga1ore to
Gowribidanur bill. She further
submitted to get the entry
closed by the Bangalore, but he has got it
done by ” on Ex.M5, learned Counsel
»:th’e_c:harg:e'”‘isproved and the enquiry is held as

fairlland is so, in case of pilferage, the Labour

‘*C.:>urt veaseiot in mod11§rm’ ‘ g the punishment.

.4 H ; Counsel for the Iespondent submitted that,

is ‘no; pilferage found against the respondent She also

_ Ex.M5 and pointed out that, against the tickets of

.Avde’I£<lJmi11ation of 125.20] ~ fimn Raichur to Bangalore, the starting

'entry is 445215 and there is no ticket sold from the said

denomination and thereafter by mistake. the respondent instead

we

-4-

of commencing the entry as 445215. he started as 445224. She

submitted that, even if the mistake is committed by

respondent in making the entry, he is requixed

amount for the corresponding tickets as in between’-«t? it

which were not mentioned, are requi1ed.”to &_c’ounted5 the

respondent himself and it cannot be is

pilferage on his part. Insofar as ‘Be
imzgularity or negligence on flee -tiie-, 1°es.1i)onc1enti§and it
cannot be said to be a gievoueii’ attract the
punishment of Ineofer tie got it done
by the Trafic be txeated as
serious charge ‘– 2 ‘ .

6. The respondent is that. reissue
of fickete of of Rs.20/~. From the perusal of

‘entry in the way bill is 445215, which staxts

u from of 20 rupees tickets and there is no sale
tickets@’tom: till Bangaloxe. It is not pointed out that,
ticlgeteiwizere sold and the amount was credited by the

and thereafter, again he has sold the same tickets.

–aippears fiom Ex.MS is that, the respondent, who was
to commence the entry from Bangalore as 445215, has

Hicommeneed the entry as 445224 by omitting mentioning of 9

7\»-

and also by denying backwages.

-5-

numbers. Even assuming that he had mentioned wrong

number, the respondent will not be benefited or will not

any gain nor will’ it cause loss to the Corporation revenue as d ‘

respondent, who was in possession of the tickets.’

Rs.20]– denomination, which are sold

bill, are required to be credited to theiaccount
If he had sold the tickets in the 3 fm}m« 1 to
Bangalore and thereafter he certainly it
attracts the allegation of» the way bill
at Ex.M5 do not sold the tickets

commencing from “if are not sold and if

there is an erfzor’–in in particular cohnnn, it
cannot be held that the has committed a misconduct
of piiferage Corxporationvrevenue. As far as second charge

is concerned, the ‘I’ra;Efic Controller has not made the

entxy, any prejudice to the Corporation
it attractsv-._’an3*’T”‘major punishment The negligence on the
d therespondent is proved by the evidence and for that, the

has punished the xespondent by denying 3

in such

“-«ciit:”i1n1stances, when the case of pilferagc is not proved by the

Corporation based on its own document, I find that the

punishment of dismissal is harsh and the Labour Court in

-5-

exercise of its discretionary power under Section 11–A of the

Industrial Disputes Act has rightly modified the punishment

my opinion, it does not call for interference by this Court. ” ”

Accordingly, the Writ Petition. fails and is

KNM]-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information