ORDER :

1. The petitioner-Road Transport Corporation, is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) A writ of certiorari or order or direction quashing the impugned award dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, at Tumkur in Application No. 10(4)(A) No. 1/2017 produced at Annexure-M.

(b) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit, under the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The respondent-workman was appointed as a driver with effect from 04.07.2020. On 26.07.2015, while discharging his duty in a bus bearing Registration No. KA-06-F-952 plying in Route No. 23/24 i.e. Bengaluru to Hosadurga at 11.45 hours near Nelamangala on Joss Toll of National Highway-4 after crossing white line of divider due to rash, high speed and negligent driving of the respondent-workman, the driver dashed against a two-wheeler which came from the opposite direction due to which the two-wheeler rider expired at the spot and pillion-rider expired on the way to the hospital.

3. It is alleged that this accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver-workman. The Divisional Controller submitted an accident report stating specifically that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the workman-driver. On the basis of the said report of the Divisional Controller, the Disciplinary Authority, on 29.07.2015, suspended the respondent-workman.

4. On 05.08.2015, the Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer, K.S.R.T.C. Bengaluru, wrote a letter to the Chief Security and Vigilance Officer, K.S.R.T.C. Bengaluru, intimating about the accident due to negligent driving. On the basis of the said report article of charges was issued on 18.08.2015 towards which a reply was submitted by the workman, which was not accepted.

5. The Enquiry Officer being appointed submitted a report stating that the charges had been proved, and the respondent-workman was called upon to give a reply to the enquiry report, a reply when given was not accepted, and the respondent-workman was dismissed from service on 02.08.2016.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-workman filed a Claim Statement under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in Application No. 10(4) A No. 1/2017. The said Principal District Judge held the enquiry to be fair and proper. But however, allowed the claim petition of the workman and set aside the dismissal order directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service with continuity of service and without back wages from the date of dismissal, but withholding three increments. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner-Corporation is before this Court.

7. Sri. R.B. Annappanavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that:

7.1 There is serious delinquency on the part of the workman-driver inasmuch as an accident has been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the said driver, which has resulted in two deaths and as such, the Tribunal ought to have upheld the order of dismissal instead of reinstating the workman.

7.2 The Labour Court has also further erred in taking into account certain lower punishments awarded to certain other workmen to support its order of reduction of punishment, which ought not to have been done.

8. Per contra, Sri. L. Shekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, would submit that the Labour Court has rightly taken into consideration the various factors and had reduced the punishment, which cannot be found fault with. The respondent-workman has been discriminated against vis-a-viz other workmen who were awarded a lesser punishment. The Road Transport Corporation has in the Motor Accident claim filed has supported the workman and as such disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated. Therefore, this Court ought not to interfere in the matter and the petition