Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 658 (KAR)

Divisional Controller of KSRTC v. S. C. Karigowda

2018-06-04

A.S.BOPANNA

body2018
ORDER : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioners in both these petitions are assailing the very same award dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 19/2011. The petitioner in W.P. No. 45950/2014 is the employer who is aggrieved by the award whereby the industrial Tribunal has modified the punishment imposed on the respondent to withholding one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner in W. P. No. 44922/2014 is the employee concerned, who is aggrieved by the very same award in so far as imposing the alternate, modified punishment and the petitioner therein contends that the Industrial Tribunal ought to have set aside the punishment imposed by the employer in its entirety. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as the employer and the employee, where ever the context so requires, since they are arrayed differently in these two petitions. 3. The employee is working as a driver in the employer-Corporation. On 16.10.2009, a punishment was imposed on the employee, where under, the employer apart from ordering recovery of Rs. 10,000/- in ten installments towards the damage caused to the bus, had also imposed the punishment of withholding two increments with, cumulative effect. The said punishment was imposed since the employee while driving the bus bearing registration No. KA-01-F-8464, on 14.05.2008, on the route from Bengaluru to Chikkamagaluru, had caused accident, whereby, the bus had suffered damage. In the enquiry held against the employee, the charge alleged was proved and ultimately the punishment was imposed. The employee claiming to be aggrieved, had raised a dispute in I.D. No. 19/2011. The Industrial Tribunal while analyzing the evidence available before it, has arrived at the conclusion that the charge as proved against the employee is justified. However, it has arrived at a conclusion that the quantum of punishment is not proportionate and has accordingly modified the punishment. 4. The employer while assailing such award, its learned counsel would contend that the Industrial Tribunal after having arrived at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the employee is proved, ought not have altered he punishment imposed, more particularly, in the circumstance where the employer has taken into consideration all aspects and has only imposed punishment of withholding increment with which the employee in any event, cannot have grievance. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the employee, on the other hand, would contend, even assuming for a moment that the consideration has been made by the Industrial tribunal in holding the charge as proved is justified, even in such circumstance, the punishment as imposed itself is not justified in a circumstance where the employer in any event, has been permitted to recover the loss caused in view of damage to the bus. Hence, he seeks that the Industrial Tribunal ought to have set aside the punishment imposed by the employer in its entirety. 6. Having taken note of the rival contentions and keeping in view the scope available to this Court with regard to the limited judicial review in a petition of the present nature, a perusal of the award would disclose that the industrial Tribunal having referred to the evidence of the management as well as the workman, has taken into consideration the document at Ex.M-5 namely, the accident report, wherein it has been held that there is no mechanical defect/brake failure as claimed by the employee. The document at Ex.M-6 has been taken into consideration, to take note of the scene of accident and in that light had arrived at the conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the employee as a driver, in causing the accident. 7. In such circumstance, having arrived at the conclusion that the employee being negligent is liable to pay the damage caused to the bus and in that light, has arrived at the conclusion that the punishment is required to be modified. In that background, if the consideration as made by the industrial Tribunal, even if in that circumstance the recovery of the damage caused to the bus is made by the employer, certainly in a circumstance of the present nature, there should be some punishment to be imposed which would act as a deterrent on the employee concerned in causing similar accident by his negligence, which would make such employee to be more careful while discharging his duties. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view, though it could be said that the imposition of punishment of with holding of two increments with cumulative effect in the present circumstance, was certainly on the harsher side. 8. At the same time, the imposition of punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect is not an appropriate and proper punishment. 8. At the same time, the imposition of punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect is not an appropriate and proper punishment. Therefore, taking into consideration these aspects, the award dated 22.03.2014 passed in I.D. No. 19/2011 is modified holding that the punishment as modified to be imposed on the employee concerned shall be of with holding one increment with cumulative effect. In view of the same, Writ Petition No. 45950/2014 is allowed-in-part and Writ Petition No. 44922/2014 is dismissed as being without merit. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.