A CHANDRAPPA BANGLORE NORTH TALUK Vs. MANAGEMENT OF BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a driver employed by the respondent. While on duty on September 28, 1998, he consumed liquor and picked up quarrel and misbehaved with the passengers. This constitutes misconduct under Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations 1971 (for short 'the Regulations'). THE Peenya police registered a case and arrested him. During the course of investigation by the police, he was subjected to breath analysis test at K.C. General Hospital and it was found That, the petitioner had consumed alcohol. Charge sheet was filed in C.C. 24520/1998 and the petitioner was produced before the Court, where he admitted the guilt and was sentenced to pay fine, which he remitted. An articles of charge was issued alleging that, the petitioner failed to discharge his duty as responsible worker of the Corporation, misbehaved with the public and caused not only inconvenience to the traveling public, but also financial loss to the Corporation, which was highly deplorable and against the conduct and discipline of the Corporation. THE matter was subjected to an enquiry, THE petitioner participated in the enquiry along with a co-worker. THE Enquiry Officer submitted report that, the matter can be dealt under Regulation 28. A show cause notice dated August 31,1999 was issued, to which the petitioner did not submit any explanation. THE Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the power under Regulation 28(1) of the Regulations,: passed an order of dismissal dated January 31, 2000.

(2.) AN industrial dispute having arisen, the Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Bangalore, for adjudication of the points of dispute. The petitioner filed claim statement and the respondent filed counter statement. The Labour Court noticing the charge sheeting of the petitioner by the police, the imposition of sentence of fine and the remittance of fine and the fact of the petitioner not replying to the show cause notice and also having failed to participate in the proceedings before it and in the absence of any other evidence, rejected the reference and passed the award. Aggrieved, the workman has filed this writ petition.

(3.) I have perused the record. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is: Whether the Labour Court is justified in not exercising the power under Section 11-A of the Act and interfering with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority?