Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 410 (KAR)

Chandrakanth v. N. E. K. R. T. C.

2015-04-09

RAVI V.MALIMATH

body2015
ORDER : Ravi V. Malimath, J. 1. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver-cum-Conductor in June 2000 with the respondents. A case was registered against him that on 21.12.2002 when he was conducting the bus plying from Bombay to Bidar he failed to issue ticket to the passengers despite collecting the fair amount. An article of charge was issued, for which he has replied. An enquiry was ordered. The charges were held to be proved. He was dismissed from service by the order dated 21.04.2004. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By the impugned award, the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 (for short the 'Act'). That in terms of Section 13-B of the Act, the same would be applicable to the respondents, since they are an industrial establishment as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. 3. Number of decisions are relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. Since the issue has received a finality by the orders of this Court in a series of litigations questioning the very same issue that is raised herein, it is wholly unnecessary to go into any of the detailed arguments advanced. Judgments were rendered by the Division Bench as well as by the Full Court. Ultimately, by the order of the Division Bench reported in ILR 1997 KAR 509 (H. Muniswamy Gowda v. Management of KSRTC and another), it was held that the regulations of the Corporation are to be declared as governing the service conditions of the respondent-corporation including the appellants therein and various observations were made. The respondent herein too is the KSRTC. Hence, it would be wholly unnecessary to refer to any of the contentions advanced. 4. It is further contended that the respondent therein was the KSRTC and the respondent herein is the NEKRTC. Therefore, the judgment is not applicable. I fail to understand how such a contention could be advanced. When NEKRTC is admittedly formed out of the original KSRTC, necessarily the law that has been held binding on the KSRTC will also be held binding on the NEKRTC. Therefore, such a contention is rejected. 5. Therefore, the judgment is not applicable. I fail to understand how such a contention could be advanced. When NEKRTC is admittedly formed out of the original KSRTC, necessarily the law that has been held binding on the KSRTC will also be held binding on the NEKRTC. Therefore, such a contention is rejected. 5. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 6 SCC 351 (Union of India and others v. Major S.P. Sharma and others) by relying on the previous pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has held at paras 81, 82 and 83 as follows: "81. Thus, the principle of finality of litigation is based on a sound firm principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end to litigation. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such anarchy. 82. In a country governed by the rule of law, the finality of a judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment and it is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the court as it would not only tantamount to merely an abuse of the process of the court but would have far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice. It would also nullify the doctrine of stare decisis, a well-established valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. The judgments of the court and particularly of the Apex Court of a country cannot and should not be unsettled lightly. 83. Precedent keeps the law predictable and the law declared by this Court, being the law of the land, is binding on all courts/tribunals and authorities in India in view of Article 141 of the Constitution. The judicial system "only works if someone is allowed to have the last word" and the last word spoken is accepted and religiously followed. The doctrine of stare decisis promotes a certainty and consistency injudicial decisions and this helps in the development of the law. Besides providing guidelines for individuals as to what would be the consequences if he chooses the legal action, the doctrine promotes confidence of the people in the system of the judicial administration. The doctrine of stare decisis promotes a certainty and consistency injudicial decisions and this helps in the development of the law. Besides providing guidelines for individuals as to what would be the consequences if he chooses the legal action, the doctrine promotes confidence of the people in the system of the judicial administration. Even otherwise it is an imperative necessity to avoid uncertainty and confusion. Judicial propriety and decorum demand that the law laid down by the highest court of the land must be given effect to." Hence, the contentions of the petitioner are rejected. 6. So far as the merits is concerned, it is contended that the finding of the Labour Court holding the enquiry as fair and proper is erroneous. That is also the impugned order herein. I have considered the order passed on the preliminary issue. The authority therein was of the view that based on the conduct of the workman himself it cannot be said that the enquiry is not fair. It is specifically denied by the claimant that he was not given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The signature of the workman on the office memo and signature on the other enquiry documents were tallied by the Labour Court. He has given the written statement. Therefore, he cannot turn around now and contend that he has not participated in the enquiry at all. He was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case. Hence, the enquiry was held to be fair and proper. I find no ground to interfere with the said order. 7. So far as the final order rejecting the claim is concerned, the Labour Court took into consideration the various material on record. It held that even after the workman was checked, he went on giving evasive answers. His disputed signatures with the admitted signatures tallied. That he has not even affixed his signature on the concerned documents. Therefore, the Labour Court was of the view that he was never in the process of issuing ticket at all but he has collected the fair amount from the passengers and despite collecting the fair amount from them he has not issued tickets. Substantial material was let in by the management to prove their case. Except the question of denial, nothing else has been placed by the workman in order to substantiate his case. Substantial material was let in by the management to prove their case. Except the question of denial, nothing else has been placed by the workman in order to substantiate his case. The allegation against him was that he has failed to issue the tickets to the passengers and hence the charges have been proved against him. While imposing the penalty, the previous history of the workman was also taken into account. He was involved in five previous cases of default of pilferage of the Corporation amount. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court found no error in the order of the dismissal passed by the respondent. 8. On considering the contentions and the material evidence, I find no error that calls for interference. The order passed by the Labour Court is based on facts and material it cannot be said to be perverse or otherwise. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule discharged.