AYUB AHAMED KHAN Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/workman, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.6623/2010(L-KSRTC) dated 22nd March 2011, has presented this writ appeal. In the said writ petition, the appellant/workman had sought for quashing the award dated 1st August 2009 passed by the 2nd Additional Labour Court at Bangalore in I.D.No.46/2005 vide Annexure H to the writ petition. The order passed in the said writ petition is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant/workman is that, he was a permanent employee of the respondent Corporation working as Driver in Bagepalli depot of Kolar Division, with Badge No.1391. That on 11-08- 2001, when the appellant/workman was manning the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-07/F-390 on route Chikkaballapur to Mysore, it met with an accident around 17 hours near R.S.N.R.S. Rice Mill of Ramanagaram, as a result of which a cyclist died at the spot. An investigation was held on the alleged accident and on the basis of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, the respondent/Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant/workman and issued the Article of Charges dated 4th June 2002, wherein it was stated that the appellant has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident at the outskirts of Ramanagaram, resulting in death of a cyclist at the spot, as a result of which, the Corporation has incurred heavy financial loss besides inconvenience to the travelling public.

(3.) After receipt of the Articles of Charges, the appellant/workman submitted his detailed reply to the same, denying the charges leveled against him and he also submitted his detailed explanation, indicating the circumstances under which the vehicle met with an accident. Not being satisfied with the reply/explanation submitted by the workman, the Corporation appointed the Divisional Superintendent as Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry on the alleged accident, resulting in misconduct of the workman. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted a thorough enquiry and submitted the report, stating that the workman is guilty of the charges leveled against him. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Corporation dismissed the workman from service, by its order dated 2nd May 2005. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed by the Corporation, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the II Additional Labour Court in I.D.No.46/2005, under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.