KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. Y.R. ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Management to quash an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), on 17.01.2011 in I.D. No. 45/2006, in so far as it relates to the modification of an order of punishment dated 04.06.2004, vide Annexure -D and to dismiss the claim petition as against the challenge to the said order of punishment is concerned. Heard Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned advocate for the petitioner. Respondent though has been served with the notice has remained unrepresented.

(2.) PERUSED the writ record.

(3.) THE respondent - workman having been imposed different punishments vide orders dated 26.12.2002, 18.10.2003, 04.06.2004 and 05.02.2005 and he having approached the Government, by an order dated 25.02.2006, in exercise of the power under S. 10(1)(d) of the Act, a reference was made to the Tribunal for adjudication. Both the parties filed claim and counter statements respectively. Based on the pleadings, issues having been raised, both parties adduced evidence. In support of the punishment order dated 04.06.2004 is concerned, for the Management Exs. M35 to M53 were marked. The Tribunal while considering the matter with regard to the punishment order dated 04.06.2004 held that the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper. It also arrived at the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the workman. However, having arrived at the conclusion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, it modified the punishment order dated 04.06.2004, into reduction of basic pay by one annual increment with cumulative effect instead of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The other portion of the punishment order i.e., recovery of Rs. 6,362/ - in 12 equal installments and treating the suspension period as 'not on duty' was upheld. On account of the modification of the punishment, the workman was held entitled to the consequential monetary benefits.