.1.
__.__,_._.__._.-_- _
_ _' .. -4..
IN THE HIGH COURT' OF' KARNH
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF MARCH '.2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.A!§i A'
BETWEEN :
North-West I{a.1*zI.:.=J.I.=-.k..s.I. Road.
'I'ra11sp0rt Corporation.
$1661 Road,
HUBLI.
By its Managing Director.
New represented by its H V _ L ._
Deputy Chief Law Ofli(:'er. " .1: % I PE'I'I'l'IONER
(By Sri. K. Raghav'ei:~.dfa..Adv..:f9r
an I L? "
Sn. L. C-earl:-.-1:1-:.3,_A9ié.ri_,.
n1ur'\.
IIIVIJF
Prakash. . .
S_/o. Vishwanath Devé1li,'. .--
Ex-Driver, K.S.R"."!'.C.,.V *-
Agc.'A-3 y:;a1's,;Occ: Nil, V
9. Ne-§\f~T¢lnphone Exchange,
£'*slRSi~.'}_81 _ R JSPQNDENT
A
This \,F_.r'I'i1;F'etit:io11 is mad' ' under Am' "cles 2146 Sr. 2.2?' of the
Consfitutian' 91' India praying to quash the award Dt.o5.o3.2oo4
" " mafia: in KIE)...No.40/ 1999 by the Labour Court, I-Iubli vide _Am:1--I-I,
EQT 1-grrrxou uo.5ss9,:@ ' & '
II
I'D
ll
onnmg
An awald dated 5th March 2004 in K.I.D.No.40/
called in question by the Corporation.
2. Respondent was a driver. Hewvas énuolvedt K ''accident resulting in death of 4 passeng;ers.:;’_’_’
Corporation conducted a domestic’e_n’qui1y.” “The
submitted a report holding that: ‘-t1.te.. charge i_ his Jf3p1’oved.
Diseipim, Authority passed” at;_ ct;et:rtt;ot*t«1ismisaa1. The
r°”po”dent raised a disnutc efiatnst dte order ‘.2. :’I..m1sss.1 .11:
Labour Court found enqttizj and proper.
However. on grttngp the Labour Court
found that the are perverse. The
Labour Court relied on and Ex.M3. Motor Vehicle
Inspector’; report ‘evidence of Traffic Inspector and ‘
Cno”teye’~wit11ess”mlias been examined to prove the charge
ortashtme by the respondent.
3.’.”Lea1′?neti”.t3ounse1 appearing for the petitioner submitted
mspondent had set up a defence that the accident was due
lock i.e., mechanical defect. The respondent has
it ‘admitted the accident and also has admitted that, it is due to the
d?1.Lee!I.s_.ic..1 defect _;n__ not on account of any other reason.
.3-
was no mechanical defect. He submitted that, if the mechanical
defect is not proved by the iespondent. the only infexencejthat
could be drawn is that. the accident was due to ”
negligent driving of the respondent. He
Labour Court has not considered this asjpeetor the _-V’ ”
4. Respondent thoughed ‘~se1ved-..
unrepresented.
5. The Labour Court gfnound that the
charge is not pmved It observed
that. in the iash and negligent
driving cannct—-be’VAp::t$ved;3: .. of head-on collusion or
involven1ent;,,of– It is a case where the
E II h’I\-Jul.-I-nlslu-I
driver in tijriiig to void the accident
has be on account of mechanical defect. In
it case; the respondent has set up a defence. stating that the
” the reason. No doubt. if it is proved, then it
to mechanical defect. ‘ The report at Ex.M3 does
the mechanical defect. In such circumstances, the
qnestion whether the respondent was careful in driving or not. is
WI’:-.’
cw»
\
-4.
Court. The mechanical defect is required to be proved by the
respondent and not by the Corporation. The Corporafionhas
submitted its report as per Ex.M3 if Ex. M3 is not V.
respondent should have led the evidence. But ‘
only on the ground that the eye witI1Eiss’Vis’.y;o:t
passed the In my opinion, the eiwaixl .Ieq1iiIes*to’:I:)e_”s-et”~_
asidfn
Accordingly. the Writ’ .-ae”m:io:i is The ewes dated
5th Mamh 2004 in I.lZ).No.4Q]V_1:1£}99hv’fis §tguesi:e”d;..tdte* The matter is
n:.m1tf
c
.– -.–._.._.–_-_.