Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 138 (KAR)

Management of Ksrtc v. J. Kotreshi

2017-01-23

B.VEERAPPA

body2017
ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioner-Management filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Award dated 22.11.2012 made in I.D. No. 13/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment of reducing the pay of the respondent-workman by one incremental stage, imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the petitioner-corporation. On 18.12.1995, while performing his duties in bus bearing No.F-139 plying from Chitradurga to Raichur, the said bus was checked by the checking officials at Manvi. During the course of checking, it was found that the respondent has failed to issue two tickets of Rs. 8/- each and failed to collect the fare amount. On the basis of the said report, the Disciplinary Authority issued the articles of charge on 2.4.1996. The respondent failed to submit his reply. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the materials available on record, vide order dated 30.7.1996 imposed the punishment of reducing one increment with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the respondent-workman raised the dispute under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act for short) in the year 2009. The Tribunal after considering the entire materials on record, by the impugned Award dated 22.11.2012 set aside the punishment imposed by the Management. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The respondent though served is unrepresented. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Sri. Abhijith learned counsel for the petitioner - Corporation vehemently contented that the punishment was imposed in the year 1996 and the dispute was raised in the year 2009 and therefore there was an inordinate delay of 13 years in raising the dispute. Absolutely no explanation is offered by the claimant in the claim petition. The Tribunal condoned the delay relying on the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board (2007) 14 SCC 291 and in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. G.M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another, AIR 2011 SC 455 . The Tribunal has not considered the delay in raising the dispute in the proper perspective and absolutely no discussion is made to condone the delay. The Tribunal has not considered the delay in raising the dispute in the proper perspective and absolutely no discussion is made to condone the delay. In the absence of any explanation, the Tribunal was not justified in condoning the inordinate delay of 13 years. He further contended that the Tribunal permitted both the parties to produce and adduce evidence. The workman himself adduced his evidence as WW. 1 and produced the documents Ex.W1 and Ex.W2. On behalf of the Management, M.W. 1 was examined and produced the documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M6. The said material documents have not been considered by-the Tribunal. Therefore he sought to set aside the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the present writ petition. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner, the only point that arises for my consideration in the present writ petition is: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned Award setting aside the punishment imposed by the Management in the facts and circumstance of the present case?" 6. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the petitioner-Corporation During the course of his employment, on 18.12.1995 while performing his duties in the bus bearing No.F-139 plying from Chitradurga to Raichur, it was found by the checking officials that the respondent has failed to issue two tickets of Rs. 8/- each and failed to collect the fare amount. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the report of the checking officials, the articles of charge were issued to the respondent. The respondent failed to submit his reply. Therefore the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the punishment on 30.7.1996 reducing one increment with cumulative effect. 7. It is also not in dispute that after the lapse of 13 years, the respondent has raised the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of Sections 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act. In the entire claim statement, the respondent has not offered any explanation for the delay of 13 years. 7. It is also not in dispute that after the lapse of 13 years, the respondent has raised the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of Sections 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act. In the entire claim statement, the respondent has not offered any explanation for the delay of 13 years. In the objections filed by the Management to the claim petition at paragraphs-4 and 5, a specific contention was taken by the Management that the petition is barred by limitation of time; The punishment order was passed during the year 1996 and hence such oldest documents of punishment order are not readily available on hand and there is no cause of action for the reference made by the Government. 8. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal allowed both the parties to adduce evidence. Once the parties adduced evidence, the Tribunal has to consider the matter on merits considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record. Admittedly in present case though the workman is examined as WW. 1 and got marked two documents Ex. W1 and Ex W2 on his behalf and the Management examined M,W.1 and got marked six documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M6 on its behalf, the Tribunal failed to consider the said oral and documentary evidence. The Tribunal relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nanjundegowda v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Another 2010 (1) AIR KAR. R 858, set aside the punishment imposed by the Management only on the ground that the major punishment cannot be imposed without holding domestic enquiry. 9. It is also not in dispute that when the parties were permitted to adduce fresh evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has to decide the matter on merits and it cannot set aside the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that no enquiry was conducted. It is impermissible in law. The Tribunal ought to have decided the case on merits instead of setting aside the punishment order on the ground that no domestic enquiry was conducted. 10. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the writ petition has to be held in the negative holding that Tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned award in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 10. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the writ petition has to be held in the negative holding that Tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned award in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 22.11.2012 made in ID No. 13/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the evidence adduced and the documents produced by both the parties and pass orders in accordance with law. 12. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.