{"id":146887,"date":"2001-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001"},"modified":"2018-06-05T05:07:09","modified_gmt":"2018-06-04T23:37:09","slug":"karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001","title":{"rendered":"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2738  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nKARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA &amp; ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/05\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. Bharucha &amp; N. Santosh Hegde\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal is referred to a Bench of Five Judges based<br \/>\non the following order made by a Bench of two Judges of this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tview of the conflict of decisions of this Court\t in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/889223\/\">Shambhu\t Nath Goyal vs.\t Bank of Baroda &amp; Others,<\/a> (1984\t (1)<br \/>\nSCR  85)  and Rajendra Jha vs.\tLabour Court, (1985 (1)\t SCR\n<\/p>\n<p>544),  we are referring this matter to a larger Bench  which<br \/>\nhas  to\t be  a Bench of more than three Judges.\t  Mr.\tRao,<br \/>\nlearned\t counsel appearing for the respondents, states\tthat<br \/>\nthere  is  no conflict in the decisions.  According  to\t us,<br \/>\nthat  submission  is not correct.  Hence, we  are  referring<br \/>\nthis to a larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It is seen from the above order that the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondents had contended that there is no<br \/>\nconflict  between the two judgments referred to in the\tsaid<br \/>\norder.\t However, the Bench thought otherwise.\tSince it  is<br \/>\nagain  contended now before us on behalf of the\t respondents<br \/>\nthat  there  is no conflict between the said  judgments,  we<br \/>\nwill first examine that aspect of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>    <a href=\"\/doc\/889223\/\">In\tShambu Nath Goyal vs.  Bank of Baroda &amp; Others<\/a> (1984<br \/>\n1 SCR 85) this Court held:\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t rights\t which\tthe employer has in law\t to  adduce<br \/>\nadditional  evidence in a proceeding before the Labour Court<br \/>\nor Industrial Tribunal either under section 10 or section 33<br \/>\nof  the Industrial Disputes Act questioning the legality  of<br \/>\nthe  order terminating the service must be availed of by the<br \/>\nemployer  by  making  a proper request at the time  when  it<br \/>\nfiles  its statement of claim or written statement or  makes<br \/>\nan  application\t seeking either permission to  take  certain<br \/>\naction or seeking approval of the action taken by it.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t    (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>    This  decision was rendered by the Court while  deciding<br \/>\nthe  stage  at\twhich  the management is  entitled  to\tseek<br \/>\npermission  to\tadduce\tevidence  in  justification  of\t its<br \/>\ndecision taken on the basis of a domestic enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>    <a href=\"\/doc\/627650\/\">In\tRajendra  Jha vs.  Presiding Officer, Labour  Court,<br \/>\nBokaro Steel City, Distt.Dhanbad &amp; Anr.<\/a>\t (1985 (1) SCR 544),<br \/>\nthough\tthis  Court was considering a similar  question,  we<br \/>\nfind  the  Court  did not lay down any law contrary  to\t the<br \/>\njudgment  in  Shambu  Nath Goyals case.\t A perusal  of\tthe<br \/>\njudgment of this Court in Rajendra Jhas case shows that the<br \/>\nCourt  decided the said case on the facts of that case only.<br \/>\nThis  is clear from the following observations of the  Court<br \/>\nin Rajendra Jhas case :\n<\/p>\n<p>    Thus, the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the<br \/>\nemployers  to lead evidence has been accepted and acted upon<br \/>\nby  the\t appellant.  He has already given a list of his\t own<br \/>\nwitnesses  and\thas  cross-examined   the  witnesses   whose<br \/>\nevidence  was  led by the employers.  It would be wrong,  at<br \/>\nthis  stage, to undo what has been done in pursuance of\t the<br \/>\norder  of the Labour Court.  Besides, the challenge made  by<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tto the order of the Labour Court has  failed<br \/>\nand  the  order\t of  the Patna\tHigh  Court  dismissing\t the<br \/>\nappellants writ petition has become final.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Thus it is seen from the above observations of the Court<br \/>\nin  Rajendra Jhas case that same is decided on the facts of<br \/>\nthe  said case without laying down any principle of law\t nor<br \/>\nhas  the Court taken any view opposed to Shambu Nath Goyals<br \/>\ncase.\tTherefore,  having considered the two judgments,  we<br \/>\nare  of\t the  opinion  that  there is  no  conflict  in\t the<br \/>\njudgments  of  this Court in the cases of Shambu Nath  Goyal<br \/>\nand Rajendra Jha.\n<\/p>\n<p>    This,  however,  does not conclude our consideration  of<br \/>\nthis  appeal, because on behalf of the appellant reliance is<br \/>\nplaced\ton some other earlier judgments of this Court which,<br \/>\naccording  to  the appellant, have taken a view contrary  to<br \/>\nthat of Shambu Nath Goyals case.  Therefore, we consider it<br \/>\nappropriate to decide this question with a hope of putting a<br \/>\nquietus to the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Before  we proceed to examine this question any further,<br \/>\nit  will  be  useful  to bear in mind that the\tright  of  a<br \/>\nmanagement  to lead evidence before the Labour Court or\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Tribunal in justification of its decision  under<br \/>\nconsideration  by such tribunal or Court is not a  statutory<br \/>\nright.\tThis is actually a procedure laid down by this Court<br \/>\nto  avoid  delay  and  multiplicity of\tproceedings  in\t the<br \/>\ndisposal of disputes between the management and the workman.<br \/>\nThe  geneses of this procedure can be traced by noticing the<br \/>\nfollowing  observations of this Court in Workmen of  Motipur<br \/>\nSugar  Factory (P)Ltd.\tVs.  Motipur Sugar Factory (1965 (3)<br \/>\nSCR 588) :\n<\/p>\n<p>    If\tit  is\theld  that  in\tcases  where  the  employer<br \/>\ndismisses  his\temployee  without holding  an  enquiry,\t the<br \/>\ndismissal  must be set aside by the industrial tribunal only<br \/>\non  that ground, it would inevitably mean that the  employer<br \/>\nwill  immediately  proceed to hold the enquiry and  pass  an<br \/>\norder  dismissing  the employee once again.  In\t that  case,<br \/>\nanother\t industrial  dispute  would arise and  the  employer<br \/>\nwould be entitled to rely upon the enquiry which he had held<br \/>\nin  the mean-time.  This course would mean delay and on\t the<br \/>\nsecond\toccasion  it will entitle the employer to claim\t the<br \/>\nbenefit\t of the domestic enquiry given.\t On the other  hand,<br \/>\nif  in\tsuch cases the employer is given an  opportunity  to<br \/>\njustify\t the  impugned dismissal on the merits of  his\tcase<br \/>\nbeing considered by the tribunal for itself and that clearly<br \/>\nwould  be to the benefit of the employee.  That is why\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  has consistently held that if the domestic enquiry is<br \/>\nirregular,  invalid  or improper, the tribunal may  give  an<br \/>\nopportunity  to the employer to prove his case and in  doing<br \/>\nso the tribunal tries the merits itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Bearing in mind the above observations if we examine the<br \/>\nvarious\t decisions of this Court on this question it is seen<br \/>\nthat  in  all  the judgments this Court has  agreed  on\t the<br \/>\nconferment  of this right of the management but there  seems<br \/>\nto  be some differences of opinion in regard to the  timings<br \/>\nof  making such application.  While some judgments hold that<br \/>\nsuch  a right can be availed by the management at any  stage<br \/>\nof  the proceedings right upto the stage of pronouncement of<br \/>\nthe  order  on the original application filed  either  under<br \/>\nSection\t 10  or Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial  Disputes<br \/>\nAct,  some  other judgments hold that the said right can  be<br \/>\ninvoked only at the threshold.\n<\/p>\n<p>    There   are\t a  number  of\t judgments  of\tthis   Court<br \/>\nconsidering the above question but we think it sufficient to<br \/>\nrefer  to  the following cases only since these\t cases\thave<br \/>\nconsidered  almost all the earlier judgments on the question<br \/>\ninvolved in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    <a href=\"\/doc\/1575323\/\">In Delhi Cloth &amp; General Mills Co.\tvs.  Ludh Budh Singh<\/a><br \/>\n(1972  (3) SCR 29) this Court after referring to most of the<br \/>\nearlier cases on the point laid down the following principle<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<p>    When a domestic inquiry has been held by the management<br \/>\nand  the management relies on it, the management may request<br \/>\nthe  Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic inquiry as<br \/>\na  preliminary\tissue  and also ask for\t an  opportunity  to<br \/>\nadduce\tevidence  before the Tribunal if the finding on\t the<br \/>\npreliminary issue is against the management.  In such a case<br \/>\nif  the\t finding  on the preliminary issue  is\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nmanagement,  the Tribunal will have to give the employer  an<br \/>\nopportunity  to\t adduce additional evidence and also give  a<br \/>\nsimilar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra.<br \/>\nBut  the  management  should  avail   itself  of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nopportunity  by\t making a suitable request to  the  Tribunal<br \/>\nbefore\tthe proceedings are closed.  If no such\t opportunity<br \/>\nhas  been availed of before the proceedings were closed, the<br \/>\nemployer  can  make no grievance that the Tribunal  did\t not<br \/>\nprovide for such an opportunity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t    (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>    The\t words before the proceedings are closed gave rise<br \/>\nto some doubts as to whether it is open to the management to<br \/>\nseek  this  right  of leading fresh evidence at\t any  stage,<br \/>\nincluding  at  a stage where the Tribunal\/Labour  Court\t had<br \/>\nconcluded  the proceedings and reserved its judgment on\t the<br \/>\nmain issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t above\tjudgment  in  D.C.M.s\tcase  came  to\t be<br \/>\nconsidered  again  by  this  Court in  the  case  of  <a href=\"\/doc\/926132\/\">Cooper<br \/>\nEngineering  Limited vs.  Sri P.P.Mundhe<\/a> (1976 (1) SCR 361),<br \/>\nwherein this Court held :\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tare, therefore, clearly of the opinion that when  a<br \/>\ncase  of  dismissal or discharge of an employee is  referred<br \/>\nfor  industrial\t adjudication the Labour Court should  first<br \/>\ndecide\tas a preliminary issue whether the domestic  enquiry<br \/>\nhas  violated the principles of natural justice.  When there<br \/>\nis  no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted  by<br \/>\nthe  employer,\tthere will be no difficulty.  But  when\t the<br \/>\nmatter\tis in controversy between the parties that  question<br \/>\nmust  be  decided as a preliminary issue.  On that  decision<br \/>\nbeing  pronounced  it will be for the management  to  decide<br \/>\nwhether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court.<br \/>\nIf  it\tchooses not to adduce any evidence, it will  not  be<br \/>\nthereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue.<br \/>\nWe  should  also  make\tit  clear  that\t there\twill  be  no<br \/>\njustification  for any party to stall the final adjudication<br \/>\nof  the\t dispute  by  the labour court\tby  questioning\t its<br \/>\ndecision  with\tregard\tto the preliminary  issue  when\t the<br \/>\nmatter,\t if  worthy,  can be agitated even after  the  final<br \/>\naward.\t It  will be also legitimate for the High  Court  to<br \/>\nrefuse\tto  intervene  at this stage.  We are  making  these<br \/>\nobservations  in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in<br \/>\nindustrial adjudication.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As\tis  seen  from\tthe  above,  this  Court  in  Cooper<br \/>\nEngineerings  case held that when the Tribunal\/Labour Court<br \/>\nwas  called  upon  to decide the validity  of  the  domestic<br \/>\nenquiry\t same  has  to be tried as a preliminary  issue\t and<br \/>\nthereafter,  if necessary, the management was to be given an<br \/>\noption\tto  adduce fresh evidence.  But the problem did\t not<br \/>\nstop at that.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t question  again  arose in the case of\tShambu\tNath<br \/>\nGoyals case (supra) as to the propriety of waiting till the<br \/>\npreliminary  issue was decided to give an opportunity to the<br \/>\nmanagement to adduce evidence, because after the decision in<br \/>\nthe  preliminary  issue\t on  the validity  of  the  domestic<br \/>\nenquiry,  either  way,\tthere was nothing much\tleft  to  be<br \/>\ndecided\t thereafter.  Therefore, in Shambu Nath Goyals case<br \/>\nthis  Court  once  again considered the said question  in  a<br \/>\ndifferent  perspective.\t  In this judgment, the Court  after<br \/>\ndiscussing  the\t earlier  cases including  that\t of  <a href=\"\/doc\/1718782\/\">Shankar<br \/>\nChakravarti  vs.  Britannia Biscuit Co.\t Ltd.  &amp; Anr.<\/a>  (1979<br \/>\n(3) SCR 1165), which was a judgment of this Court subsequent<br \/>\nto  that  of  Cooper   Engineering  (supra),  the  following<br \/>\nprinciples were laid down:\n<\/p>\n<p>    We think that the application of the management to seek<br \/>\nthe  permission\t of the Labour Court or Industrial  Tribunal<br \/>\nfor  availing  the  right  to  adduce  further\tevidence  to<br \/>\nsubstantiate  the  charge  or  charges\tframed\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nworkman\t referred to in the above passage in the application<br \/>\nwhich  may be filed by the management during the pendency of<br \/>\nits  application made before the Labour Court or  Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal  seeking  its\tpermission under section 33  of\t the<br \/>\nIndustrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 to take a certain action  or<br \/>\ngrant approval of the action taken by it.  The management is<br \/>\nmade  aware of the workmans contention regarding the defeat<br \/>\nin  the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence<br \/>\nfiled  by  him\tin the application filed by  the  management<br \/>\nunder  section\t33  of\tthe Act.  Then,\t if  the  management<br \/>\nchooses\t to  exercise its right it must make up its mind  at<br \/>\nthe earliest stage and file the application for that purpose<br \/>\nwithout\t any  unreasonable  delay.  But\t when  the  question<br \/>\narises\tin  a  reference  under s.10 of the  Act  after\t the<br \/>\nworkman\t had  been punished pursuant to a finding  of  guilt<br \/>\nrecorded  against  him in the domestic enquiry there  is  no<br \/>\nquestion  of  the  management  filing  any  application\t for<br \/>\npermission to lead further evidence in support of the charge<br \/>\nor charges framed against the workman, for the defeat in the<br \/>\ndomestic  enquiry  is  pointed\tout by the  workman  in\t his<br \/>\nwritten\t claim\tstatement  filed  in  the  Labour  Court  or<br \/>\nIndustrial  Tribunal  after the reference had been  received<br \/>\nand  the  management has the opportunity to look  into\tthat<br \/>\nstatement  before it files its written statement of  defence<br \/>\nin  the\t enquiry  before  the  Labour  Court  or  Industrial<br \/>\nTribunal  and could make the request for the opportunity  in<br \/>\nthe  written statement itself.\tIf it does not choose to  do<br \/>\nso  at that stage it cannot be allowed to do it at any later<br \/>\nstage  of the proceedings by filing any application for\t the<br \/>\npurpose which may result in delay which may lead to wrecking<br \/>\nthe  morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which<br \/>\nhe may not otherwise do.\n<\/p>\n<p>    While  considering\tthe decision in Shambu Nath  Goyals<br \/>\ncase,\twe  should  bear  in   mind  that  the\tjudgment  of<br \/>\nVardarajan,J.\ttherein does not refer to the case of Cooper<br \/>\nEngineering  (supra).\tHowever, the concurring judgment  of<br \/>\nD.A.Desai,J.   specifically  considers\tthis case.   By\t the<br \/>\njudgment  in Goyals case the management was given the right<br \/>\nto  adduce evidence to justify its domestic enquiry only  if<br \/>\nit  had reserved its right to do so in the application\tmade<br \/>\nby  it under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<br \/>\nor  in the objection that the management had to file to\t the<br \/>\nreference  made under section 10 of the Act, meaning thereby<br \/>\nthe  management\t had to exercise its right of leading  fresh<br \/>\nevidence  at the first available opportunity and not at\t any<br \/>\ntime   thereafter   during  the\t  proceedings\tbefore\t the<br \/>\nTribunal\/Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Keeping  in mind the object of providing an\t opportunity<br \/>\nto   the   management\tto   adduce  evidence\tbefore\t the<br \/>\nTribunal\/Labour\t Court,\t we  are  of the  opinion  that\t the<br \/>\ndirections  issued by this Court in Shambu Nath Goyals case<br \/>\nneed  not  be varied, being just and fair.  There can be  no<br \/>\ncomplaint  from\t the  management  side\tfor  this  procedure<br \/>\nbecause this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought<br \/>\nby  the management only as an alternative plea and not as an<br \/>\nadmission  of  illegality in its domestic enquiry.   At\t the<br \/>\nsame  time, it is also of advantage to the workmen  inasmuch<br \/>\nas  they  will\tbe  put\t to notice  of\tthe  fact  that\t the<br \/>\nmanagement  is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence,\tthey<br \/>\ncan  keep  their  rebuttal or other  evidence  ready.\tThis<br \/>\nprocedure also eliminates the likely delay in permitting the<br \/>\nmanagement   to\t make  belated\t application   whereby\t the<br \/>\nproceedings  before  the  Labour  Court\/Tribunal  could\t get<br \/>\nprolonged.   In\t our  opinion, the procedure  laid  down  in<br \/>\nShambu Nath Goyals case is just and fair.\n<\/p>\n<p>    There  is  one  other reason why we\t should\t accept\t the<br \/>\nprocedure  laid\t down by this Court in Shambu  Nath  Goyals<br \/>\ncase.  It is to be noted that this judgment was delivered on<br \/>\n27th  of  September, 1983.  It has taken note of almost\t all<br \/>\nthe  earlier  judgments of this Court and has laid down\t the<br \/>\nprocedure  for\texercising the right of leading evidence  by<br \/>\nthe  management which we have held is neither oppressive nor<br \/>\ncontrary to the object and scheme of the Act.  This judgment<br \/>\nhaving\theld the field for nearly 18 years, in our  opinion,<br \/>\nthe doctrine of stare decisis require us to approve the said<br \/>\njudgment  to  see  that\t a long\t standing  decision  is\t not<br \/>\nunsettled without strong cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that<br \/>\nthe  law laid down by this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/889223\/\">Shambu\tNath<br \/>\nGoyal  vs.  Bank of Baroda &amp; Others<\/a> (1984(1) SCR 85) is\t the<br \/>\ncorrect law on the point.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In the present case, the appellant employer did not seek<br \/>\npermission to lead evidence until after the Labour Court had<br \/>\nheld  that its domestic enquiry was vitiated.  Applying\t the<br \/>\naforestated principles to these facts, we are of the opinion<br \/>\nthat  the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition<br \/>\nof  the appellant, hence, this appeal has to fail.  The same<br \/>\nis dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001 Author: S Hegde Bench: S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2738 of 2001 PETITIONER: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA &amp; ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/05\/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha &amp; N. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146887","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-04T23:37:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T23:37:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2682,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001\",\"name\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T23:37:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-04T23:37:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001","datePublished":"2001-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T23:37:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001"},"wordCount":2682,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001","name":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T23:37:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-smt-lakshmidevamma-another-on-1-may-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs Smt. Lakshmidevamma &amp; Another on 1 May, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146887","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146887"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146887\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146887"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146887"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146887"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}