The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vs Basavaraj

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the workman is that he was appointed as a conductor in the year 1993. While he was discharging his duty as a conductor on 12.11.1999 on the route Sedam to Chincholi the bus was stopped for checking. It was found that the workman has not issued tickets to some passengers. Hence, an article of charge was issued. An enquiry was held. He participated in the same. He was dismissed from the service. A reference was made by the Government before the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the impugned award the dismissal order was set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service but without back wages within two months from the date of award. Aggrieved by the same, the corporation has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on holding an enquiry the workman was dismissed from service. The Labour Court without any valid reason has reversed the said finding. Substantial evidence was let in to prove the guilt of the workman. The same was disbelieved by the Labour Court. The Labour Court on appreciating the evidence held at para-9 that the workman had not collected the fare amount from the passengers therein and not closed the way bill even before reaching the stage point. Therefore it held the management has proved the alleged misconduct against the workman.

On considering the quantum of punishment the Labour Court assigned the reason at para-10 by holding that however there are 22 past history cases of default against the workman and punishment have been imposed against him it does not appear that they are in very much larger. The 22 past cases were he has received punishment was considered by the Labour Court in para-10 by holding as follows:

"By looking to the length of his service, the said 22 past history default cases are not more in number.

It is in this regard learned counsel for the corporation relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730 : (2006) 4 CTC 345 : (2006) 110 FLR 931 : (2006) 6 JT 428 : (2006) 3 LLJ 232 : (2006) 7 SCALE 163 : (2006) 6 SCC 187 : (2006) SCC(L&S) 1290 : (2006) 3 SCR 585 Supp : (2007) 1 SLJ 211 : (2006) AIRSCW 3701 : (2006) 5 Supreme 573 which was followed by the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Shankar M. Pujari Vs. The Divisional Controller, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bagalkot Division, (2008) 118 FLR 340 : (2008) ILR (Kar) 970 : (2008) 3 KarLJ 592 : (2008) 3 LLJ 828 . Therein the workman was involved in similar acts of misconduct for 15 to 20 cases. He was dismissed from service. The Labour Court rejected the application. The writ petition was filed which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, a writ appeal was filed. By taking into conduct the previous past history as well the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra the writ appeal was dismissed. The same facts would appear in the present case also. In fact, the present case is stronger since there are 22 cases of past history wherein the workman was imposed with penalties and he had continued to commit the act of misconduct of causing loss to the corporation. The finding of the Labour Court to the effect that there are not many cases against the workman therefore cannot be accepted under any circumstances, consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Labour Court in Ref. No. 208/2004 vide Annexure-F is set aside.