KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. M.C. NANJEGOWDA ADULT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a Road Transport Corporation, having passed two separate orders of punishment, for two separate acts of proved misconduct committed by the respondent, after holding a domestic enquiry, first of which is dated 11.1.2002 and the second is dated 27.2.2003, when subject matter of a common order of reference for industrial adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore, was registered as Ref. No. 71/2004. In that proceeding, after the parties filed their respective statements, the Industrial Tribunal framed preliminary issues over the validity of the domestic enquiry in both the orders of punishment. There afterwards, the Inquiring Authority, in respect of the order of punishment dated 27.2.2003, was examined as M.W. 1 and documents marked as Exs. M. 1 to M. 22. However, M.W. 2, a traffic inspector, fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the case leading to the order dated 11.1.2002, when examined, the documents of the enquiry proceeding pertaining to the said order of punishment were not marked on the premise that documents Exs. M. 1 to M. 22 were already marked. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to the materials on record returned a finding that the domestic enquiry was invalid. There afterwards, regard being had to the documents marked as Exs. M. 1 to M. 22, the Industrial Tribunal held, the charge of non issue of tickets, proved, and upheld the order dated 27.2.2003 imposing the punishment of withholding two increments for a period of five years as a measure of punishment, and accordingly rejected the reference of the said dispute, while insofar as the order of punishment dated 11.1.2002, in the absence of marking of records, held the misconduct not proved, set aside the said order and allowed the reference by award dated 27.7.2011. Hence this petition.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, examined the award impugned, what is evident is that M.W. 2, in examination in chief by way of affidavit, stated that the documents pertaining to the order dated 11.1.2002, were filed, nevertheless, when examined in Court stated that since documents Exs. M. 1 to M. 22 were already marked, there was no need for marking the documents, without noticing that Exs. M. 1 to M. 22 were in relation to the order of punishment dated 27.2.2003

(3.) IN that view of the matter, it is appropriate to quash the award insofar as it relates to setting aside the order of punishment dated 11.1.2002 and remit the proceeding for consideration afresh, while permitting the parties to adduce evidence, subject to costs. In the result, petition is allowed. The award insofar as it relates to setting aside the order of punishment dated 11.1.2002 is quashed and in all other respects, remains unaltered. Proceeding is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration over the order of reference relating to the order of punishment dated 11.1.2002 and pass award after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing the parties including recording of evidence, both oral and documentary. Cost of the proceeding is fixed at Rs. 2,000/ - payable to the respondent workman on the next date of hearing before Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. Parties, since represented by the learned Counsel, are directed to be present before Industrial Tribunal, Mysore on 11.11.2013.