H.S. RAVINDRAIAH vs THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC

Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing in ''B'' Group, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, matter is taken up for

final disposal.

This writ petition is filed by the workman/petitioner calling in question the award dated 16.05.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli (for

short ''tribunal'') in I.D.30/2013 whereunder reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the appropriate

Government has been rejected both on the issue of delay in raising the dispute as well as on merits.

Petitioner was selected and appointed as conductor by respondent-Corporation on 14.07.1986 and he was administering the bus bearing

No.F-2315 as conductor on route Tumminakatte to Davanagere. It was found by the checking squad that petitioner - workman had failed to issue

tickets to three passengers who were travelling from Tumminakatte stage No.9 to Sirigere cross stage No.6 and had failed to collect fare of Rs.7

each from them. Hence, a report was prepared by the officials of checking squad and submitted to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority

on the basis of report submitted by the checking squad issued Articles of charges to the petitioner and there being no reply received from the

petitioner, disciplinary authority imposed minor punishment and reduced his basic pay to one increment for a period of one year without cumulative

effect by order dated 30.08.2003. Subsequently, petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the said order of punishment. However, after 8

years i.e., during February, 2012 through Trade Union, a dispute came to be raised before the authority and appropriate Government made

reference to the jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of said reference, which was as under:

(1) Whether the Second Party management Divisional Controller, Davanagere Division is justified in passing the order No.Ka Ra Sa : Da Vee:

Shi Sha: 2105: 03 dated 30.8.2003 reducing one annual increment for one year without cumulative effect from basic pay?

(2) Whether the petition is stale on account of delay in raising the dispute after lapse of 08 years 04 months without assigning any reasons?

Workman got himself examined as W.W.1 and in all, he produced and got marked 5 documents as Exs.W.1 to W.5. On behalf of

management, one official was examined as M.W.1 and through him, 5 documents were marked as Exs.M.1 to Ex.M.5. Tribunal, After hearing the

arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties and on considering the evidence placed on record, by judgment

and award in question, held that claim made by the workman/writ petitioner is a stale claim and it was raised after 8 years 4 months and there was

no satisfactory explanation/justifiable cause or credible material placed to substantiate the said delay being bonafide. Even on merits, tribunal found

that challenge to the imposition of minor punishment of reducing the basic pay of the workman by one increment for a period of one year without

cumulative effect was not in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, rejected the reference by impugned award.

It is the contention of Sri M.C. Basavaraju, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that tribunal failed to consider the material placed before

it by the workman in a proper perspective and cause for delay being on account of petitioner prosecuting his alternative remedy by way of filing

appeal before appellate Authority and this aspect has not received the attention of the tribunal. He would also elaborate his submission by

contending that tribunal failed to consider the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner being in violation of principles of natural justice,

inasmuch as, no prior notice was issued and no enquiry was held before imposition of punishment. Hence, he prays for quashing of the impugned

award.

Per contra Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned Advocate appearing for respondent- Corporation would support the judgment and award passed by the

tribunal and contends that petitioner had failed to place any material before the tribunal to explain the delay and as such the contention raised by the

petitioner in that regard has rightly been rejected. Hence, he prays for rejecting the writ petition.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment and award in question, it would clearly disclose that

punishment of reduction by one increment from basic pay without cumulative effect came to be imposed on 30.08.2003 by the disciplinary

authority. Said order was not challenged by the workman/petitioner for reasons best known till 06.02.2012 - Ex.W.5 which is a dispute raised by

Trade Union on behalf of the workman. Though it is contended that petitioner was prosecuting his claim before appellate Authority, the same

remained as an assertion without any proof and no material whatsoever was produced by the workman before tribunal. Even in the said

application-Ex.W.5 petitioner has not stated that he had approached the appellate authority and it is for the first time in the claim petition which

was filed before the tribunal, petitioner contended that he was prosecuting his plea assailing order of punishment before appellate authority. No

scrap of paper was or has been produced before the tribunal or before this Court to substantiate said claim. It is because of this precise reason,

tribunal, has appreciated entire evidence available on record and has arrived at a conclusion that delay of 8 years and 4 months in raising a dispute

has not been explained with credible material and there is inordinate delay in raising the said dispute. In that view of the matter, contention of Sri.

M.C. Basavaraju, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner on the issue of delay cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.

Insofar as merits of the case is concerned, in the background of the order of punishment dated 30.08.2013 imposed by disciplinary authority

and charge sheet-Ex.M-2 issued to petitioner, when perused, it would clearly disclose that workman namely the petitioner has received said

charge sheet on 26.08.2003 and also memo -Ex.M-1. He has affixed his signature to the penalty receipt -Ex.M-3 dated 22.06.2003. Order of

punishment dated 30.08.2003 - Ex.M-4 is also received by the petitioner in the year 2003 itself. In the light of the said documentary evidence

available on record, tribunal has recorded a finding that the workman had failed to reply to the charge sheet and deny the charges leveled against

him. It is not the case of the petitioner that either he has not been served with charge memo, Articles of charges or offence memo. In that view of

the matter contention of Sri. Basavaraju, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that there has been violation of principles of natural justice

cannot be accepted and the plea put forward by the workman before tribunal in his evidence has remained as a plea without proof. On the other

hand, respondent-Corporation has been able to demonstrate that at all stages, petitioner has been afforded opportunity but he had failed to make

use of the same. As such, this Court is of the considered view that finding recorded by the tribunal cannot be found fault with. There is no other

good ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.