The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Sri. K. Suresh Kattigehalli Kotrappa

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the award dated 23.6.2011, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in ID No. 305/2009 vide Annexure-G. By the impugned award at Annexure-G, the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, has modified the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and has imposed penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are;

The respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. On 4.2.1991, the respondent was discharging his duty in the bus bearing No. F-2319 which was plying from Bellary to Davangere. The bus was checked at Yeshwanthpur. It was found that two passengers were travelling on top of the bus and they were hit by the guard pole of the railway gate and sustained injuries. Consequently, departmental enquiry as initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority concurring with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer has imposed punishment reducing one annual increment with cumulative effect. A dispute has been raised in ID No. 305/2009. The Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, by its award dated 23.6.2011 has held that the enquiry was fair and proper and has modified the punishment by imposing withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Industrial Tribunal having held that the enquiry was fair and proper was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Further, he submitted that Section 11A of the ID Act is not applicable and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in modifying the punishment. He placed a reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers'' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, .

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned award does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Industrial Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of charge has modified the punishment and therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent was charged with an allegation that he had allowed two passengers to travel on the top of the bus and they sustained injuries as they were hit by the guard pole of the railway gate. The Enquiry Officer has held that the charge was proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurring with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer has imposed penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The Industrial Tribunal has modified the punishment by imposing penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers'' Union Vs. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Others, has observed as follows:

The Labour Court had earlier held that the enquiry was properly held and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the findings were not perverse. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. If the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has not power to interfere with the punishment imposed. Section 11A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the section itself. Before the introduction of Section 11A in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmen this Court held that the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management and that the Tribunal will interfere only when there is want of good faith, victimization, unfair labour practice, etc. on the part of the management. There is no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimisation, etc. in this case. The powers of the Labour Court in the absence of Section 11A are illustrated by this Court in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. When enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any of the allegations of victimization or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management. Since Section 11A is not applicable, the Labour Court has no power to reappraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. Of course, the Labour Court can interfere with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, here there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry.

It is clear, the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment having held that the enquiry was fair and proper. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal modifying the punishment cannot be sustained in law. It is without jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 305/2009 vide Annexure-G modifying the punishment is hereby quashed. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored.