LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-378

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC Vs. JYOTIRLINGAPPA H.

Decided On September 17, 2013
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC Appellant
V/S
Jyotirlingappa H. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Public Road Transport Corporation engaged the respondent -as a Conductor, who when found to have committed a misconduct of possessing excess cash of Rs. 33.50 paise, was issued with the articles of charge and the explanation thereof when found not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of withholding one annual increment permanently by order dated 15.12.1995. The workman did not question the order immediately, but initiated conciliation proceeding during the year 2008, following which the State Government referred, for adjudication, the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Hubli, registered as I.D. No. 163/2008. Although the workman did not lay a foundation, to explain, to the satisfaction of the Industrial Tribunal, the delay of 12 years in having the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication, nevertheless the Industrial Tribunal, having framed an issue over the delay answered the same in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in JT (2007) 12 SC 141 . Petitioner -Corporation having placed material in support of the misconduct for the first time before the Industrial Tribunal, was accepted as credible material and the charge held proved. However, the Industrial Tribunal observed that the punishment was too harsh calling for interference and accordingly, by the award impugned dated 18th May 2012 modified the punishment to one of withholding one increment for the year 1995 without cumulative effect. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(2.) THE facts, law and issues for decision making, -in this petition, are identical to those that arose for consideration in Writ Petition No. 8297/2012 D.D. 16.9.2013 The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation -vs. - Sri. H G Basavegowda) For the very same reasons, as set out in the order in W.P. No. 8297/2012, this petition is accordingly allowed. The award of the Industrial Tribunal is quashed. The reference by the State Government is rejected.