MANAGEMENT OF NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BELGAUM DIVISION BELGAUM Vs. B R GUDUGANATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was a driver working at Bailhongal Depot of belgaum Division, NWKRTC. On 14-2-1995 while on duty enroute belgaum-Bailhongal he caused a fatal accident at about 13. 30 hours near Hirebagewadi. He was served with an articles of charge accusing him of rash and negligent driving which resulted in an accident in which three persons lost life and 20 passengers sustained injuries. The respondent gave a reply denying the charges. Not being satisfied with the said reply an enquiry was initiated. Petitioner examined witnesses in support of their case and also produced eight documents which were marked. Respondent contended that the reply given by him to the charge-sheet has to be taken as his evidence. As there was an obligation cast upon the Enquiry Officer to put questions to the delinquent in the event of his not examining himself, he was questioned and his statement was recorded in which he stated the accident arose on account of breaking of front right side main leaf. The Enquiry Officer on appreciation of the entire material on record recorded a finding that the misconduct alleged against the respondent is established and accordingly he submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary Authority accepting the said finding of the Enquiry Officer and on appreciating the entire material on record dismissed the respondent from service by his order dated 18-4-1996.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order of dismissal the respondent filed an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987, contending that the domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper; the material on record do not establish the misconduct alleged against the respondent; at any rate the order of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the respondent. Petitioner filed their counter contesting the said claim. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic enquiry. Both the parties adduced evidence. By a considered order dated 3-10-1998 the labour Court held that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to consider the entire material on record and came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no material on record to establish the misconduct alleged against the respondent. Therefore, it set aside the order of dismissal, directed reinstatement and awarded 50% back wages by its award dated 25-9-1999. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned award contends the reasoning of the Labour Court that because no eye-witnesses are examined, no conductor is examined, no passenger is examined, mechanical engineer is not examined and, therefore, there is no evidence to prove the misconduct, is illegal, contrary to law and, therefore, liable to be quashed. She submitted it is for the driver who was driving the bus to show that the accident did not happen because of his negligence. When no such evidence is given, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies to the facts of the case and, therefore, the labour Court committed a serious error in interfering with the order of dismissal.