Tulasi Motayya vs The Management of NWKRTC

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 19th May 2010 passed in Reference No. 4 of 2010 impugned at Annexure A� to the petition.

The petitioner was working as a trainee driver in the respondent-Corporation. In respect of the charge of rash and negligent driving and causing the accident whereupon the death of two persons was caused by the petitioner, an enquiry was held and the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 13th March 2004. The petitioner raised a dispute, which was referred to the Presiding, Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi, in Reference No. 4 of 2010. The Labour Court by its award dated 19th May 2010 has rejected the Reference. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award would contend that in the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner with regard, to the very same accident, he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court in the judgment dated 30th. September 2002 passed in C.C. No. 102 of 2002. Learned counsel would also refer to the document at Annexure �D� to the petition to point out that in respect of the claim petition filed by the dependents of the motor-cyclist in MVC No. 157 of 2002, respondent Management, which was respondent in the said proceedings, has specifically stated in paragraph 5 of the objection statement that the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident and therefore, was not liable to pay the compensation. In that light, it is contended that when the respondents have themselves taken up a contention that the petitioner�s driving was not rash and negligent, they could not have taken any action against the petitioner on the same premise and in that view, the labour Court ought to have taken these aspects into consideration and an appropriate decision should have been taken. He, therefore, contends that the award is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondent Management, however, seeks to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court. He would contend that the Labour Court, in fact, has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter and despite the same, since the Labour Court was of the opinion that the charges alleged against the petitioner had been proved in the enquiry. The enquiry was also held fair. The evidence did not disclose any perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer and in that light, when the Labour Court has appreciated all these aspects of the mattery this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction in a writ petition, is not expected to set aside such an award.

In the light of the rival contentions put forth, I have perused the petition papers.

Insofar as the consideration as made, it is found in the award dated 19th May 2010, which is at Annexure �A� to the petition. On taking note of the rival pleadings, the Labour Court had framed six issues for its consideration and in that light, at the outset, answered issue No. 4 relating to the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. The documents relied on at Exs. M-1 to 22 was noticed and in that light, after taking note of the evidence tendered by the workman as WW-1 and the documents produced at Exs. W-1 and 2 has held by its order dated 15th April 2009 that the domestic enquiry held was fair and proper, in that light, When the preliminary issue was answered in favour of the respondent-Corporation, since the document relied in that regard was available to be taken note by the labour Court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether there is any perversity in the findings rendered by the enquiry officer, the Labour Court has referred to the charge-sheet dated 07th March 2002, with regard to the accident that had occurred on 27th December 2001 at Gadag-Hubballi Road near Annigeri Village and in that light, on taking into consideration the other documents, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the finding as rendered by the enquiry officer is based on the material available and there is no perversity that could be attached to the finding rendered. Having arrived at such a conclusion, the Labour Court has also taken into consideration the judgment passed in C.C. No. 102 of 2002 and the proceeding in MVC No. 157 of 2002 which were available at Exs. W-1 and 2. in that light, the Labour Court, on appreciating the fact that in the Criminal Case, the benefit of doubt had been granted to the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that in the MVC proceedings, the compensation bad been awarded, has arrived at the conclusion that the action taken by the respondent does not call for interference.

Having noticed the said findings rendered by the Labour Court, in the background of the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, i have again referred to the judgment passed in C.C. No. 102 of 2002 dated 30th September 2002. The Criminal Court after referring to the evidence available on record and the manner in which the accident has occurred was of the opinion that the benefit of doubt is required to be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, when the standard of proof is different in the criminal proceeding as against the domestic enquiry where preponderance of probability is sufficient to come to a conclusion, the benefit of acquittal, in all circumstances, cannot be made as the basis to provide the relief in, the disciplinary proceedings.

That apart, insofar as the objections put forth by the respondent in MVC No. 157 of 2002, a composite perusal of the entire objection statement would disclose that in the nature of the pleading that had been put forth by the claimants since ultimately the respondents will have to pay the compensation, an appropriate defence either to defeat the claim or minimise the compensation has been taken in the said proceeding. Merely because such contention has been taken by the respondent, the same will not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner to contend that the respondent had conceded the fact that the petitioner did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner. In any event, the said contention which has been put forth by the respondent before the MACT in MVC No. 157 of 2002 has been negatived and the Claims Tribunal has rendered a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner herein and awarded compensation. Therefore, such benefit also would not be available to the petitioner.

Though, having arrived at the above conclusion, this Court is also required, to notice as to whether the punishment as imposed is commensurate to the nature of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, keeping in view the mandate contained in Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Normally, in a circumstance where a driver has rendered a long period of service and even if the negligence is held against him for causing the accident, an appropriate consideration is required to be made in the matter of punishment by noticing as to whether the same is the only instance and whether any lighter punishment would serve the purpose. However, in the instant case, it is noticed that the record discloses that the petitioner had joined the respondent-Corporation in the year 2001 as a trainee driver and while he continued to work so, he had caused a fatal accident on 27th December 2001 and in such circumstance, merely because he has continued in the service till the enquiry, was concluded and the punishment was imposed in the year 2004, the benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner when in the short duration such serious misconduct is committed. Hence, for all these reasons, i do not find it appropriate to interfere with the award dated j 19th May 2010 impugned herein.

The petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.