High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 09 KAR CK 0356

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Hassan Division vs V. Ramesh Adult

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 17 September 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Mohan Reddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2510 of 2013 (L-KSRTC)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 313 words

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner, a Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 27.2.2012 in Ref. No. 8/2005 of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, Annexure-E setting aside the order dated 25.10.2003 imposing punishment of stoppage of five increments permanently and recover of Rs. 5,330/- from the salary of the respondent workman for proved misconduct, has presented this petition. The order of punishment when subject matter of adjudication, the industrial dispute registered as Ref. No. 8/2005 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, parties filed their respective pleadings, based upon which the Industrial Tribunal framed additional issues over the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner management. Since no evidence was let in on the said issues, the Industrial Tribunal answered the issue against the petitioner Corporation by holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal though extended several opportunities to the petitioner Corporation to lead evidence in support of the charges, did not adduce evidence. As a result, the workman was examined as W.W.1 and marked one document as Ex. W.1. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to the fact that there was no material whatsoever on record to establish the alleged misconduct committed by the respondent workman, held the misconduct not proved and set aside the order of punishment and accordingly allowed the reference by the award impugned.

2.

In the grounds to the memorandum of writ petition, it is stated that the lapse in not adducing evidence before the Industrial Tribunal was due to "lack of communication" and that Division Office was not informed to depute the witnesses to lead evidence. In my considered opinion, this statement, in the absence of relevant material, being a bald assertion, is far from being a satisfactory explanation on the part of the petitioner Corporation. Suffice it to say, the explanation is unacceptable. Writ petition devoid of merit is accordingly rejected.