DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., HASSAN DIVISION Vs. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, S/O. CHIKKANNA, EX-KSRTC CONDUCTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CHIKMAGALUR DEPOT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent, a trainee conductor while conducting the bus bearing No. F -0179 on 20.5.1999 between Chikmagaluru to Halasumane, was found to have committed misconduct by the checking staff. It was found that, he had not collected the fare of Rs. 3/ - each nor had issued tickets to a group of 6 passengers who were travelling from Chikmagalur to Vsllgerahalli village and had failed to issue tickets to a group of 15 passengers who were travelling from Chikmagaluru to Aladaguddi, despite collecting requisite fare of Rs. 50 each. Upon receipt of the report from the checking inspectors, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show Cause notice dated 26.5.1999 to the Respondent who submitted a reply. Not satisfied with the reply received, the name of the Respondent from the list of trainee conductors was ordered to be deleted on 17.11.1999. The workman raised a dispute and filed a claim under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) challenging the said order before the Labour Court at Chikmagalur. The management filed counter statement. Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were raised. Issue No. 1 was subsequently deleted. The management having been called upon to lead evidence, examined 2 witnesses and marked 9 documents. The workman got himself examined. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Labour Court held that the management is not justified in removing the name of the workman from the list of trainee conductors from 17.11.1999. Finding that, the workman has committed the alleged misconduct and that he has no past history, treating the misconduct in question as the first act, the impugned order was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the workman in his original post together with continuity of service and other consequential benefits but without back wages. As a measure of punishment, the management was permitted to withhold 2 ensuing increments of the workman with cumulative effect. Aggrieved, the management has filed this writ petition.

(2.) BY an interim order dated 22.4.2010, while granting stay of the impugned award, the management was directed to reinstate the workman and pay the current wages subject to the result of the writ petition. The management has taken back the workman as a trainee conductor.

(3.) SRI L. Shekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent on the other hand would submit that, there was no previous misconduct committed by the workman and the allegation that there were 21 acts of similar misconduct in the post was not even proved by producing any material before the Labour Court and in the circumstances, the Labour Court is justified in passing the impugned award.