The Divisional Controller vs Shivashankrayya

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation” for short) has challenged the legality of the Award dated 7.2.2012, passed by the Labour Court, Bijapur, whereby the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the claim filed by the Respondent-Workman, and set aside the Dismissal Order dated 8.7.2011. It has directed the Petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the Claimant into service with continuity of service, and with other consequential benefits, but has denied the Respondent-Workman the benefit of Back Wages.

Briefly facts of the case are that during 2008, the Respondent-Workman was appointed as Driver-cum-Conductor. During the course of his service, it was alleged that on 30.12.2009 he was the Driver of bus bearing Registration No. 1528. The said Bus was hired by the Headmaster of Kolhar, Taluk Basavana Bagewadi, for the purpose of taking children for sight seeing at Hampi. According to the Complainant, the Headmaster, they had hired two Buses and the busses reached Hampi at 8.30 a.m. However, both the Drivers, and both the Conductors of Buses left the Buses ; they did not come back till 4.30 p.m. Moreover, according to the Headmaster, all four of them bad consumed alcohol, and were in intoxicated state. Thus, they could not perform their duty. Hence, grave inconvenience was caused to the children and to the staff members.

Smt. Umadevi S. Babshetty, the learned Counsel for Petitioner-Corporation submits that the learned Labour Court has ignored material evidence available on record. H. Karidas Husainappa (MW1) had clearly stated that the Respondent was drunk. However, his Statement has not been believed by the learned Labour Court. Secondly, even Kallappa Upashappa Giddappagoal (MW2), the Head Master, had also deposed that the Respondent was under the influence of alcohol. Yet, even his testimony has been ignored by the learned Labour Court. Thirdly, without assigning any proper reasons, the learned Labour Court has allowed the claim filed by the Respondent. Therefore, the Award deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, the learned Counsel for Respondent has strenuously contended that the learned Labour Court has meticulously analysed the evidence produced by both the sides, and has given cogent reasons for not believing the allegations levelled against the Respondent. Secondly, the learned Labour Court had already concluded that the Enquiry conducted against the Respondent was an unfair one. After concluding so, it had given ample opportunities to both the parties to adduce their evidence. After dealing with the evidence submitted by the Petitioner-Corporation, the learned Labour Court was justified in concluding that the Respondent has been illegally terminated from his service. Therefore, the learned Counsel has supported the impugned Award.

Heard the learned Counsel for parties, and perused the impugned Award.

A bare perusal of the impugned Award clearly reveals that the learned Labour Court has critically analysed the evidence produced by Petitioner-Corporation. The learned Labour Court has noticed that MW 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he received information about Respondent’s conduct at 3.00 p.m., when he was 50 Kilometers away from Hampi. He reached Hampi by 6.00 p.m. He further admitted in his cross-examination that he did not get the Respondent medically examined. Moreover, he did not reveal in his testimony as to how he had concluded that the Respondent was drunk at the time. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was justified in ignoring the testimony of MW 1. Similarly, while dealing with the testimony of MW2, according to MW2, he had submitted a Complaint at 5.30 p.m. to MW 1. However, his Statement has not been corroborated by MW 1. Furthermore, MW2 has clearly admitted that he did not see the Respondent drinking. Likewise, he did not reveal as to how he came to the conclusion that the Respondent was drunk at the relevant time. Hence, the learned Labour Court was equally disbelieving the veracity of his testimony.

The learned Labour Court has also considered the documentary evidence : Ex.M1 is the Offence Memo. According to the learned Labour Court, there is lot of overwriting on the said Offence Memo. Thus, it cannot be accepted. Ex.M1, the Offence Memo and Ex.M2, the Log Sheet, do claim that the Respondent was intoxicated. But, no reason for such a conclusion has been given either in the documents, or by the Witnesses.

The learned Labour Court has also noticed the fact that Respondent’s plea was recorded on 24.2.2010, wherein, he has clearly denied the allegations. Yet, the Petitioner-Corporation has claimed that on 7.4.2010, he had admitted the allegations. The previous denial and the subsequent admission creates a doubt about the voluntariness of the admission made by the Respondent. Therefore, even his admission made on 7.4.2010 cannot be read against the Respondent. Even Ex.M 12, which is allegedly a Letter written by the Claimant admitting his guilt, was found not to have been written in the Respondent’s handwriting. It merely contains an alleged signature of the Respondent. Therefore, considering the fact that at the first instance, the Respondent had denied the allegations, even Ex.M 12 becomes a doubtful document.

Most importantly, in his reply to the second Show Cause Notice, the Respondent had categorically denied the allegations made against him. Thus, the alleged admission made by him is extremely doubtful. Yet, the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have unnecessarily relied on the alleged admission and have dismissed the Respondent from his service.

Lastly, the learned Labour Court has also examined Ex.M4, the Panchanama. In the Panchanama, it is mentioned that the bus was checked at 4.30 p.m. The Respondent was found to be under the influence of alcohol, and he was subjected to test by P.D.-6000 machine. The learned Labour Court has noticed the fact that there is contradiction between the contents of Ex.M 4, the Panchanama and Ex.M 1, the Offence Memo, Ex.M 2, the Log Sheet. For, while Ex.M 4 mentions the fact that the Respondent was tested by PD-6000 machine, this fact is missing from Ex.M 1 & M 2, although all the three documents are contemporaneous. Moreover, according to Ex.M 4, the Respondent was tested by a P.D.-6000 machine at 4.30 p.m., in the presence of MW 1. Yet, according to MW 1, he did not reach Hampi till 6.00 p.m. Thus, there is contradiction with regard to the time, when allegedly the Respondent was tested by P.D.-6000 machine. Moreover, according to the Respondent, he was never tested by a P.D.-6000 machine. Curiously, the test report of P.D.-6000 machine was never submitted before the learned Labour Court. Thus, the claim that the Respondent was tested by P.D.-6000 machine is shrouded in mystery.

The learned Labour Court, thus, has gone through the oral and documentary evidence with a fine toothcomb. It has validly concluded that the Petitioner-Corporation has failed to establish the allegations made against the Respondent. Hence, the learned Labour Court was justified in directing the Petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the Respondent, but without the benefit of Back Wages.

for the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award. This Petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.