The tribunal's award was upheld, emphasizing that the management must provide substantial evidence to support disciplinary actions against employees, particularly in negligence cases.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioner-BMTC seeking to quash the impugned award dated 05.08.2021 passed in I.D.No.254/2011 by the Industrial Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal), Bengaluru.

2. It is the case of the petitioner-BMTC that the respondent who was employed as a driver with the petitioner was on duty on 25.03.2008 in Bus bearing registration No.KA 01 F 1249 plying on route Timber Layout to Shivajinagar. While he was driving near Richmond Road Flyover, the respondent-driver drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner and got into a ditch, as result of which, the front main leaf of the Bus was cut. Due to the same, the bus dashed against East Block Compound. Consequently, the conductor of the Bus was thrown out of the bus, sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital and further 8 passengers travelling in the bus sustained injuries. In view of the accident and the negligence, the articles of charge dated 20.06.2008 were issued to the respondent-driver for alleged rash and negligent driving, to which, the respondent-driver replied denying all the charges.

2.1 It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent was subject to disciplinary proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer vide a dissent note dated 02.09.2009. Consequently, the respondent-driver was issued with show cause notice, to which a reply was submitted by him. It is further stated that the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, held the charges to be proved and consequently, imposed an order of punishment dated 28.10.2009 reducing the basic pay of the respondent by two annual incremental stages with cumulative effect.

2.2 It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order of punishment imposed, the respondent raised dispute, which was referred to the tribunal. The petitioner had appeared and contested the matter. The tribunal held that the Disciplinary Enquiry conducted as fair and proper.

2.3 The BMTC got examined a witness as MW.1 and the workman-driver got examined himself as a witness as WW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.C1 to C24.

2.4 Upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the order of punishment was not justified and consequently set-aside the order, which is impugned before this Court.

3. Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka for petitioner-BMTC vehemently contends that the award passed by the tribunal is perverse, erroneous and contrary to the materials placed on record. She further contends that despite the tribunal recording a finding with regard to the death of the conductor and several others being injured, it has failed to appreciate the fact of the theory of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur'. She further contends that the accident is a fact and the manner in which the accident occurred would clearly establish the negligence on the part of the respondent-driver. The death of the conductor and inmates passengers got injured due to the accident, is not in dispute. She further contends that the punishment imposed against the respondent is minor. The tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment.

3.1 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal came to an erroneous conclusion with regard to no report in respect of mechanical condition of the bus being bad. She also contends that the vehicle did not have any defect and it is due to the negligence on the part of the respondent-workman, the accident occurred and except interested statement of the respondent-workman, no material evidence was placed before the tr