MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC Vs. B SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Road Transport Corporation appointed the respondent as 'Conductor' and having found that he has committed certain acts of misconduct, issued articles of charge, whereafterwards, the Disciplinary Authority held the charges proved and by order dated 3.8.1993, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which when carried in appeal, the Appellate Authority by order dated 5.10/11.1993, set aside the order of dismissal and imposed the punishment of reducing the basic pay of the respondent to the minimum pay attached to the post of 'Conductor' and treated the period of suspension as not on duty. Respondent accepted the said order, reported to duty on reinstatement and was paid wages until attaining the age of superannuation, two years later. It appears that in the year 2006, respondent initiated conciliation proceedings, calling in question the order of the Appellate Authority, modifying the punishment of dismissal to one of reducing the basic pay to the minimum. Conciliation having ended in a failure led to the State Government referring the dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, which when registered as ID No.97/2008, parties having filed their respective claim and counter statement, issues were framed, followed by an order recording a finding in the negative over the issue relating to validity of domestic enquiry, in other words, held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafterwards, the Establishment Superintendent was examined as MW.1, however, no documents were tendered in evidence for want of records which led to the Award dated 29.11.2012 Annexure -D returning a finding that the misconduct was not proved, to conclude that the order of dismissal was illegal and directed all monetary benefits to the workman. Hence this petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner advanced a plea of delay in the reference of the dispute from the date of the order impugned, nevertheless, the Industrial Tribunal in a very casual manner at paragraph -15 of the Award made reference to the decisions in 'KARAN SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE MARKETING BOARD, 2008 1 LLJ 289 and 'KULDEEP SINGH v. G.M. INSTRUMENT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITIES CENTRE AND ANOTHER, 2011 1 LLJ 615 of the Apex Court, observing that delay in raising the dispute will not invalidate the reference and on that ground rejected the plea of delay.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the order passed by the petitioner Corporation imposing the punishment of withholding of increments for proved misconduct was subject matter of conciliation, initiated 13 years after the date of order. Though the State Government exercised its jurisdiction under the Act to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication, and the petitioner Corporation did not call in question the order of reference of the dispute by filing a writ petition grounded on the plea of reference of a stale claim, nevertheless, a duty was cast upon the respondent workman to explain to the satisfaction of the Industrial Tribunal, the delay in seeking a reference. In other words, workman ought to have placed material before the Industrial Tribunal to establish that the industrial dispute, even after 13 years, was alive and could be subject matter of an adjudication under the Act. Therefore 13 years after the date of the order of punishment, could it be said that there existed an industrial dispute so as to enable the Government to invoke its jurisdiction over an existing industrial dispute to be referred for adjudication.