C Nagaraj vs The Management of K.S.R.T.C., Davanagere

H. N. Nagamohan Das

this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 18.8.2008 in K.I.D. No. 17/2005 passed by the Labour Court at Hubli.

Writ petitioner was a Conductor in the respondent -Corporation. On 30.1.2002. when the petitioner was conducting the bus on the route from Davanagere to Kundgol, the checking squad of the Corporation conducted a check and found that the petitioner has not collected fair of ` 3/- from each of the sixteen passengers and had not issued the tickets. For this misconduct of pilferage of revenue, article of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 3.8.2004 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court u/s 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short ''ID Act''] and on the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following points for its consideration.

Whether the enquiry held against the First party is fair and proper?

Whether the respondent - management is justified in dismissing the petitioner -claimant from service by its order dated 3.8.2004?

What order?

Before the Labour Court, both the parties adduced evidence on the preliminary issue relating to the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court by order dated 19.10.2006, held the domestic enquiry as not fair and proper. Thereafter, the respondents examined a witness and marked certain documents. The Labour Court on appreciation of the material on record held that the charge leveled against the petitioner as proved. Consequently, under the impugned award, the Labour Court dismissed the dispute. Hence this writ petition.

I heard the arguments on both the side and perused entire writ petition papers.

It is not in dispute that on 30.1.2003 the petitioner was conducting the bus. The checking squad of the Corporation conducted the check and at that time there were sixteen passengers without ticket and petitioner has not collected fare of ` 3/- from each of these passengers The explanation of the petitioner that between stage Nos 6 and 7 he stopped the bus and he was in the process of issuing tickets is not proved. In support of this contention, petitioner has not examined the Driver. On the other hand, the offence memo, statement of the ticketless passenger:-, penalty receipt and the way bill establish that the charge as proved. This finding of the Labour Court is supported by evidence on record and T find no justifiable ground to interfere.

The Labour Court noticed that the petitioner had a past history of fifty-one cases and out of them six cases were red marked cases. Despite the minor penalties levied on the petitioner, he has not improved his conduct and failed to be a loyal worker in the respondent -Corporation. In the circumstances, the labour court refused to exercise its discretion u/s 11A of the ID Act and the same is in accordance with law.

For the reasons stated above, writ petition is hereby dismissed.