Writ Petition No. 21308 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21308 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 21309 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) WRIT PETITION NO. 8524 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) IN WP No. 21308/2016 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573201 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. (BY Smt. RENUKA H R.,ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER D. YOGARAJU S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O DODDAGAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANAHALLI POST, ARAKALGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. (BY SRI.G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 6.10.2015 IN IDA NO.10/2013 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, CHIKMAGALUR VIDE ANNEX-L. IN WP NO. 21309/2016 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573201. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ...PETITIONER
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. RENUKA H R.,ADVOCATE) AND: MUKTHUM SAB S/O HUSSAIN SAB AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O ATTARA VILLAGE, @ POST, KOTUMACHAGI GADAG TALUK AND DISTRICT 582101. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L SHEKAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 06.10.2015 IN IDA 8/2013 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, CHIKMAGALUR AT ANNEX-L. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 IN WP NO. 8524/2018 BETWEEN: MUKTHUM SAB S/O HUSSAIN SAB AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT ATTARA VILLAGE AND POST KOTUMACHAGI GADAG TALUK AND DSITRICT-582101 (BY SRI. SHEKAR L.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN-573201. (BY SMT.H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 6.10.2015 PASSED IN I.D.A.NO.8/2013 BY THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS ITS RELATES TO DENIAL OF 50% BACK WAGES AND; DIRECT THIS RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER These writ petitions arise out of action taken by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [for short, 'the Transport Corporation'] against its two employees because of a road accident on 29.04.2009. The Transport Corporation's writ petitions in WP 21308/2016 and W.P. No. 21309/2016 are as against even dated order dated 06.10.2015 in IDA Application Nos.8 and 10 of 2013 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru [for short, 'Labour Court']. The details of these Applications are as follows. IDA No.10/2013: The application in IDA No.10/2013 under Section 10(4-A) of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 Industrial Disputes Act,1947 [for short, the 'ID Act'] is by Mr. D. Yogaraj, and the Labour Court has allowed this application by the impugned order setting aside of the order of dismissal dated 17.05.2013 directing the Transport Corporation to reinstate him to his original position as a driver-cum-conductor holding that he would be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement with all consequential benefits including continuity of service. IDA No.8/2013: The application in IDA No.8/2013 is also under Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act but by Mr. Mukthum Sab. The Labour Court has allowed this application granting relief to him as is stated above setting aside the order of dismissal dated 17.05.2013. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 These employees for the purpose of convenience are referred to by their name with the Transport Corporation being referred to accordingly. Mr. Mukthum Sab has filed a writ petition in W.P. No.8524/2018 being aggrieved by the Labour Court's decision to award back wages at 50%. 2. On 29.04.2009, Mr. D. Yogaraju was entrusted with the Transport Corporation's bus bearing No. KA-13/F-1789 to ply between Ramanathapura and Bengaluru and he was entrusted with this vehicle at 6.30pm. There is a collision between this vehicle and a private vehicle [Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-06/B-1226] near Yediyuru resulting in the death of six persons travelling in the Tempo Trax and injury to several others. Mr. Mukthum Sab was travelling in this vehicle as a conductor. The charges against Mr. D. Yogaraju and Mr. Mukthum Sab are that Mr. D. Yogaraju permitted Mr. Mukthum Sab to drive the vehicle and Mr. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 Mukthum Sab drove the vehicle without authorization, and this contributed to the accident resulting in loss of lives and injuries. The impugned orders of dismissal are consequent to the departmental proceedings based on such charges. 3. The Labour Court has framed questions such as [a] whether the domestic enquiry against Mr. D. Yogaraju and Mr. Mukthum Sab is fair and proper, [b] whether the orders of dismissal dated 17.05.2013 are legal and valid and [c] whether these two persons are entitled to reliefs in the event the questions are answered in their favour. The Labour Court has answered the issue on fair and proper enquiry against Mr. D. Yogaraju and Mr. Mukthum Sab, and the parties have lead evidence resulting in the impugned orders dated 06.10.2015. On the second question viz., whether the orders of dismissal dated 17.05.2013 are illegal, the Tribunal has essentially opined that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, both of them have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 acted as men of ordinary prudence. Therefore, the dismissal order is unjustified directing their reinstatement. 4. Ms. H.R. Renuka, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, before adverting to her case against the Tribunal's impugned orders, states that both Mr. D. Yogaraju and Mr. Mukthum Sab are reinstated on 18.04.2016 in terms of the interim orders granted by this Court subject to the final outcome. Mr. Mukthum Sab has continued in service without any further proceedings, but Mr. D. Yogaraju is issued with another order of dismissal dated 23.12.2020 because of another accident and he has called in question such order in an application under Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act in IDA 5/2022 which is pending with the Labour Court, Mangaluru. These are not contested by Mr. G.S. Naveen Kumar, who appears for Mr. Mukkannappa, who is on record for Mr. D. Yogaraju. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 5. Mr. L. Shekhar, the learned Counsel for Mr. Mukthum Sab, submits that the writ petition in
Decision
W.P. No. 8524/2018 can be disposed of subject to this Court's decision on interference with the Labour Court's order for reinstatement as Mr. Mukthum Sab would not insist on back wages if his reinstatement is protected subject to continuity of service with all consequential benefits. Mr. G.S. Naveen Kumar also submits that Mr. D. Yogaraju would not insist for back wages as is now permitted and even if the Transport Corporation fails in this writ petition his reinstatement benefits must be made subject to the outcome of the pending application in IDA No.5/2022. 6. These submissions narrow down the controversy for consideration, and the controversy can be captured in: Whether this Court can take exception in law with the Tribunal's findings that the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 decision to dismiss Mr. D. Yogaraju and Mr. Mukthum from service is harsh. 7. The Transport Corporation's grievance with the Tribunal's finding on the dismissal orders being harsh essentially centers around the statement by Mr. D. Yogaraju, and according to the Transport Corporation, he has stated that while he was driving the subject vehicle en route to Bengaluru, he suddenly developed cold and fever and requested Mr. Mukthum Sab's assistance to transport passengers travelling in the bus to another vehicle and wait till morning for appropriate instructions, but Mr. Mukthum Sab did not heed to his request and because he was also employed as a driver-cum-conductor took the steering wheel and there was an accident. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Mukthum in his evidence has stated that he was not at the steering wheel when the accident occurred, and his statement must be seen in the light of Mr. D. Yogaraju’s - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 statement that his statement about Mr. Mukthum taking to the Steering Wheel is obtained under duress. This evidence let in by these persons is in consonance with their respective stand with Mr. Mukthum Sab reiterating that he was not at the steering wheel and Mr. D. Yogaraju stating that he was forced to sign because of the magnitude of the accident and the resultant loss to lives and limb. The Tribunal in Mr. D. Yogaraju's case viz., IDA No.10/2013 has opined thus: 24. There is no dispute that the accident was between two vehicles, one KSRTC bus and another Tempo Trax From the documents marked in this case on behalf of the management, it is clear that in the Tempo Trax 14 passengers were travelling. Therefore, it is clear that the Tempo Trax was over loaded. Ex.M7 containing two photographs of both the vehicles clearly show that both the drivers were at fault in this accident. The main charge alleged by the second party is that though the first party was deputed to work as driver he without any authority unauthorisedly allowed the conductor of the bus to drive - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 the vehicle. The charge against Muktum Sab is that though he was not deputed as driver to the above said bus on the date of this accident, he unauthorisedly drove the vehicle and caused the accident and thereby committed misconduct and thereby both first party and Muktum Sab have committed the misconduct. In the statements marked at Ex. M5 the driver of the bus i.e., the first party has clearly stated that he drove the vehicle up to Channarayapatna and in Channarayapatna at about 1.45 a.m. on 25.04.2009 he suddenly developed fever and he could not drive the vehicle. He has also stated that he told the conductor of the bus Muktum Sab to range for another bus for the passengers so that he can take rest. He has also stated that Muktum Sab who was appointed as driver cum Conductor told him that he would drive the vehicle as no buses will be available for the passengers and therefore, it appears that the handed over the bus to Muktum Sab to drive from Channarayapatna to Bengaluru. It can be visualized that at 1.45 a.m. It is not possible for the conductor of the bus to arrange for another bus for the passengers to go to Bengaluru. The said Muktum Sab - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 was also appointed as driver cum conductor. This clearly means that Muktum Sab was also the driver. It is not the case of the second party that Muktum Sab did not know driving or he was not having driving licence and therefore he was unauthorized driver. I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first party and Muktum Sab both acted as prudent men in the situation. The accident has occurred, it is very unfortunate. As already stated there is a contributory negligence of the driver of the Tempo Trax. Therefore, I feel that the imposition of dismissal from the service is very harsh. In consonance with this finding, the Labour Court in IDA No.8/2013 by Mr. Mukthum Sab has also reasoned that: I feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first party and Yogaraju both acted as prudent men in the situation. The accident has occurred, it is very unfortunate. As already stated there is a contributory negligence of the driver of the Tempo Trax. Therefore, I feel that the imposition of dismissal from the service is very harsh. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9513 WP No. 21308 of 2016 C/W WP No. 21309 of 2016 WP No. 8524 of 2018 9. This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not persuaded to opine that such reasoning is either perverse or irregular, and unless such a finding can be entered, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be justified. Therefore, and in the light of the statement made on behalf of Mr. D. Yogaraju and Mr. Mukthum Sab on back wages, the writ petitions stand disposed of modifying the Labour Court's order dated 06.10.2015 in IDA No.8/2013 and IDA No.10/2013 denying back wages at 50% and confirming all other terms with the clarification that insofar as Mr. D. Yogaraju, this would be subject to the decision in the pending application in IDA No.5/2022 with the concerned Labour Court as against the subsequent order of dismissal. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30