The appellant is a driver employed by the respondent. While on duty on 28.09.1998, he consumed liquor and picked up quarrel and misbehaved with the passengers. This constitutes misconduct under Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations 1971 (for short ‘the Regulations’). The Peenya police registered a case and arrested him. During the course of investigation by the police, he was subjected to breath analysis test at K.C. General Hospital and it was found that, the petitioner had consumed alcohol. Charge sheet was filed in C.C.24520/1998 and the petitioner was produced before the Court, where he admitted the guilt and was sentenced to pay fine, which he remitted. An articles of charge was issued alleging that, the petitioner failed to discharge his duty as responsible worker of the Corporation, misbehaved with the public and caused not only inconvenience to the traveling public, but also financial loss to the Corporation, which was highly deplorable and against the conduct and discipline of the Corporation. The matter was subjected to an enquiry. The petitioner participated in the enquiry along with a coworker. The Enquiry Officer submitted report that, the matter can be dealt under Regulation 28. A show cause notice dated 31.08.1999 was issued, to which the petitioner did not submit any explanation. The Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the power under Regulation 28(1) of the Regulations, passed an order of dismissal dated 31.01.2000.

2. An industrial dispute having arisen, the Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Bangalore, for adjudication of the points of dispute. The petitioner filed claim statement and the respondent filed counter statement. The Labour Court noticing the charge sheeting of the petitioner by the police, the imposition of sentence of fine and the remittance of fine and the fact of the petitioner not replying to the show cause notice and also having failed to participate in the proceedings before it and in the absence of any other evidence, rejected the reference and passed the award. Aggrieved, the workman has filed this writ petition.

3. Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the out-set submitted that, the challenge to the finding of misconduct recorded by the Disciplinary Authority with which the Labour Court concurred is given up and the challenge in the writ petition is confined to the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and not interfered with by the Labour Court in exercise of the power under S.11-A of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner has no past history and hence, the punishment imposed is harsh and disproportionate. Reliance was placed on an order dated 26.05.2010 passed in WP 5548/2009, which was affirmed in WA 3227/2010 vide judgment dated 03.01.2011 (NEKRTC VS. P. PAMPANNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs).

4. Mr. E.R. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that, in view of the challenge to the finding of misconduct recorded by the Disciplinary Authority with which the Labour Court concurred being given up, the proved misconduct being of grave nature, the Labour Court is justified in not exercising its power under S.11-A of the Act, to interfere with the just punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Punjab National Bank – (2010 (8) SCC 573).

5. I have perused the record. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:

6. Indisputedly, Peenya police registered a case for a charge under S.92 (o) & (p) of Karnataka Police Act, arrested the petitioner, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet in the III Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore. The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate. The petitioner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay fine. Though disciplinary