DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, HASAN DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. SRI MANJEGOWDA, S/O. THOPEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent was a driver at Chennarayapatna Depot of the Appellant - Corporation. On 9.7.02, he was on duty driving bus No. KA -13/F -831. An accident occurred due to the bus dashing against a TVS moped and then hitting to a road -side tree. The rider of the TVS moped and a passenger in the bus died on the spot. 35 passengers in the bus and a pillion rider of the moped were severely injured. A case was registered against the Respondent/driver of the bus, by the jurisdictional police. The Appellant paid Rs. 44.000/ - to the Respondent towards advance and a further sum of Rs. 1,74,491/ - to meet the medical expenses. The Respondent was sanctioned leave for the period commencing from 9.7.02 to 19.3.04 and again from 20.3.04 to 31.5.04, treating the period as on duty and wages of Rs. 1,04,316/ - was paid. The Appellant dismissed the Respondent from service, alleging commission of misconduct and causing damage to the interests of the Corporation, by causing the said accident. The order of dismissal having given rise to a dispute, Government made a reference to the Labour Court at Chikmagalur. The Labour Court allowed the reference and set aside the order of dismissal dated 2.11.06. The Appellant was directed to reinstate the Respondent -workman into service and provide alternate job suitable to him on his producing disability certificate or to consider the application seeking voluntary retirement with continuity of service and consequential benefits for the purpose of determining the retiral benefits. However, backwages was denied. As a measure of punishment, the Management was permitted to withhold one increment with cumulative effect. The Award was directed to be implemented within one month from 19.9.09. The Award was accepted by the Appellant. The Respondent was reinstated on 22.2.10 in a sedentary post, protecting his pay and allowances.

(2.) THE Respondent filed a claim petition on 29.10.04, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan Sub -Division under Section 22(4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the Appellant, to direct payment of compensation for the injuries sustained on account of the occurrence of the accident, while on duty. The claim though opposed, was allowed by the Commissioner and compensation of Rs. 4,61,136/ - was ordered to be deposited with interest at 12% from 23.6.07 till the date of deposit. This appeal is directed against the said order/Award.

(3.) SRI B.L. Sanjeev, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, by placing reliance on the decision in the Case of Palraj Vs. The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, JT (2010) 10 SC 94 , contended that, the compensation awarded without taking into consideration the appointment of Respondent in a sedentary post, protecting his pay and allowances, is highly excessive and hence, interference in the matter is called for.