HASSAN-573 201 v. AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN

GOVINDAIAH ADULT, ASSISTANT TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT, K.S.R.T.C., EMPLOYEES UNION-INTUC, SRI. MANJUNATHA BUILDING, ADUVALLI MAIN ROAD, HASSAN-573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDANANJAIAH., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN …RESPONDENT RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:18847 WP No. 40022 of 2017 ORDER Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing.

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 28.05.2024, on that day, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and to hear learned counsel for the respondent, the petition was ordered to be listed on 03.06.2024. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

The brief facts are these: On 19.11.2013, a report was submitted by the Divisional Traffic Officer with regard to irregularity committed by the respondent. On 10.12.2013, the respondent was issued with - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18847 WP No. 40022 of 2017 Articles of charge alleging irregularities committed by him in the matter of non-operation of schedules. The respondent submitted his reply to the articles of charge. On 25.03.2014, the respondent was held guilty of charges by the disciplinary authority by imposing an order of punishment by reducing the basic pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The respondent questioned the same by filing an appeal and the appeal was dismissed. The respondent raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore for adjudication in Reference No.174/2015. The case was registered by the Industrial Tribunal and parties were issued with notice. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated:22.11.2016 allowed the dispute and set-aside the order of punishment. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18847 WP No. 40022 of 2017

The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is that the Dispute raised by the respondent is not maintainable as the respondent is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the respondent held the post of Assistant Traffic Superintendent. Hence, he is not a workman and hence, the dispute raised by him is not maintainable. A good deal of argument is canvassed on Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to contend that the respondent is not a workman. I have perused the award of the Industrial Tribunal with utmost care. It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Traffic Superintendent and he is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the dispute raised by him is not maintainable. Suffice it to note that there was no ground raised regarding the jurisdiction - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18847 WP No. 40022 of 2017 before the Tribunal. The question of jurisdiction is a question of law and hence there is no impediment for this Court to examine the same and give the finding. As already noted above, the respondent is an Assistant Traffic Superintendent and he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D Act. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded adjudicating the dispute, since the respondent is not a workman. Hence, in my opinion, the Dispute itself is not maintainable. Since this Court concludes that the dispute is not maintainable, the question of giving finding on the merits of the case does not arise. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set- aside.

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated:22.11.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.174/2015 vide Annexure-G is set-aside. Order of punishment dated:25.03.2014 passed by the Corporation is confirmed.