DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATEROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORECENTRAL DIVISION BANGALORE Vs. K C NATESHACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR proved misconduct in a domestic enquiry, the first respondent- conductor in the petitioner-ksrtc was dismissed from service. In the adjudication of the industrial dispute raised by the first respondent, he conceded the fairness of the domestic enquiry. The labour court found that the finding with regard to proof of charge, as reached by the disciplinary authority, was perverse. The labour court set aside the Order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the first respondent in service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, but with only 50 per cent of back wages, by its award dated 7-2-1997 at annexure-a. In this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, petitioner-ksrtc seeks quashing of the said award at annexure-a.

(2.) THE labour court has appreciated the evidence before the enquiring authority in a thoroughly wrong manner in coming to the conclusion that the finding with regard to proof of charge was perverse. The charge was that on 19-10-1991, when the bus which the first respondent was conducting, was checked, it was found that he had failed to issue tickets to as many as five passengers travelling from mysore to ooty inspite of having collected the fare of Rs. 26. 50 from each one of the said five passengers. Two members of the checking staff, namely mw-1, shambhu gowda, the security officer, and mw-2, v. s. urs, the asi, were examined before the enquiring authority and both of them spoke as to how on 19-10-1991, when the bus was checked, five passengers had not been issued tickets by the first respondent. Even with regard to the first respondent having collected requisite fare from the said five passengers, there was enough material, namely, the passengers' statements brought on record through the evidence of the above said witnesses, in which it had been categorically stated that the concerned passengers were not issued with tickets though fare had been paid by them. Nothing more was required for the enquiring authority to conclude that the charge of pilferage stood established. The labour court erred in concluding to the contrary. The finding with regard to proof of charge reached in the domestic enquiry was not at all perverse.

(3.) HAVING thus come to the conclusion that the charge stood established, the question is as to whether the said charge deserves extreme punishment of dismissal from service. I am of the opinion that the said punishment is disproportionate to the charge established. Acting under Section 11-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this is a fit case in which extreme penalty of dismissal from service should be substituted by a lesser punishment, the lesser punishment being denial of 75 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal from service till the date of the award.