NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. IRAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS. SMT. MANJULA, B. SUNIL AND VINOD REP. HIS MOTHER SMT. MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the respondent conductor was on duty, the bus was checked by the checking squad. It was found that he has failed to issue tickets to 8 passengers. An article of charge was issued. The charges were held proved. He was dismissed from service. He raised a dispute under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour court. During the pendency of the matter he died. By the impugned order the Labour court set aside the order of dismissal and directed payment of backwages with consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has filed the present petition. Smt. Veena Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order.

(2.) ON hearing learned counsels, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The Labour Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. It took into account the evidence and the material led in by the management. It was of the view that even the penalty receipts Ex.M. 14 and 15 do not even disclose the correct the name of the ticketless passengers. Therefore the management failed to prove the charges. Every material were considered while passing the impugned order. On considering the same, I am of the considered view that the same is in accordance with law and does not call for interference. Even otherwise it is to be seen that the order of dismissal is dated 5 -12 -2000. The claimant is said to have died on 21 -4 -2002. On a question being asked, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that in all, the total backwages would come to about Rs. 80,000/ -, subject to final calculation. Hence, on this ground also I am of the considered view that the amount being paltry, no interference is called for. Had the workman been alive, in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, necessarily he would have been reinstated with backwages as well as consequential benefits. He having died, the question of reinstatement does not arise. Therefore it cannot be said that the Corporation would be severely prejudiced by the payment of backwages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits. I do not find any merit in this petition. The petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.