B SREERAMULU Vs. GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has come before the Division Bench on a reference made by Justice Chandrakantharaj Urs on the ground that there appears to be a conflict between the decision of this Court reported in MAHABALESWAR PANDARINATH NAIK vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (1982-1 Kar. L.J. 105) and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in SURESH KOSHY vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA (AIR 1969 SC 198).

(2.) The petitioner was a Conductor in the employment of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him and he was ultimately dismissed from service by an order dated 3-12-1979, Annexure-E, passed by the third respondent. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition on various grounds and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service as a Conductor and to grant him all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by Sri. B.M. Chandrashekharaiah, learned counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C., to the effect that this is not a case in which this Court ought to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner having an effective alternate remedy available under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contended that if this Court were to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution the respondents would be deprived of the valuable rights and privileges to which they would be entitled to if the dispute is referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of Justice Rama Jois reported in HARIBA vs. KSRTC (1983-1 Kar. L.J. 261). That was also a similar case in which a Conductor of the KSRTC had challenged the order of his dismissal on various grounds. A contention was raised in'that case on behalf of the KSRTC that the writ petition should be dismissed relegating the petitioner to the remedy available to him under Sec. 10 of the I.D. Act. Justice Rama Jois, after considering the entire matter, has concluded as follows in paragraph- 16 of the judgement:-