L. Venkateshappa vs The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority, K.S.R.T.C., Banglore Central Division

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 12.05.2008 in I.D. No. 15/2003 passed by the Labour Court at Bangalore dismissing the dispute.

Petitioner was a conductor in the Respondent''s Corporation, On 18.06.2002, when the Petitioner was conducting the bus, the checking squad of the Corporation conducted a check and found that despite reaching stage No. 3, the Way Bill was not closed and as a result, 6 tickets denomination of Rs. 4.50 and 5 tickets denomination of Rs. 6.50 were not counted by the Petitioner. It is further found that Petitioner has not issued tickets to a group of 10 passengers of denomination of Rs. 2.50 each, For this misconduct, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and Petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 22.01.2003.

Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the Petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Dispute Act. On the bask of pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following 4 issues for its consideration.

1) Whether the IInd party establishes that the domestic enquiry held against Ist party was fair and proper?

2) Whether the IInd party is justified in holding the Ist party guilty of the alleged charges?

3) Whether the IInd party is justified in removing the Ist party from service as per order dated 22.01.2003?

4) To what reliefs, if any is the Ist party entitled?

Before the Labour Court, Petitioner examined himself as WW. 1 and got marked Exhibits W1 to W6. The Respondent examined one witness as MW. 1 and got marked Exhibits M1 to M12. The Labour Court by order dated 6.10.2006, held the domestic enquiry as lair, proper and valid. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record, the Labour Court held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner as proved. Consequently, under impugned award, the Labour Court dismissed the dispute raked by the Petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition.

Heard arguments on both, side and perused the entire writ papers.

It is not in dispute that on 18.06.2002, the Petitioner was conducting the bus and the checking squad conducted a check. Further it is riot in dispute that at the time of check, Petitioner has not made entries in the Way Bill and also not issued tickets to a group of 10 passengers. The explanation of the Petitioner that he was tiered on account of heavy work for 3 days prior to the date of check, is not proved by placing acceptable evidence on record. On the other hand, Ex. M3 the penalty receipt, Ex. M5 the endorsement made in the Way Bill, Ex. M6 un-punched tickets and the offence memo Ex. M4 contains the signature of the Petitioner. This material on record read with the oral evidence manifestly establishes that the charge is proved against the Petitioner. The Labour Court also noticed the variance in the defence taken by the Petitioner in reply to articles of charges and also in the claim statement. The reasoning of the Labour Court is in accordance with law and same is supported by evidence on record.

The Labour Court noticed that the history sheet of Petitioner discloses 100 default cases. Despite several minor penalties, the Petitioner has not reformed himself. In this background, the Labour Court, by taking into consideration the gravity of charge, the past history and the law laid down by this Court and Supreme Court in identical circumstances, rightly refused to exercise discretion u/s 11-A of Industrial Dispute Act.

For the reasons stated above, I fold no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.

Accordingly the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.