Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 19018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 110629 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION, DIST: BAGALKOT.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMAD YUSUF S/O BASHASAHEB KOPPAL, DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1A. GOUSIYABEGUM WIDOW MOHAMMAD YUSUF KOPPAL, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1B. MOHAMMED YASIN S/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF KOPPAL, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, D sii gg nit ea dl l by y 1C. HAJARAT BILAL S/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF KOPPAL, MANJANNA MANJANNAE E D 2 10 2a 2 :t 1e 4 5: .0 :52 2.14 AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, +0530
1D. MISS. TABASSUM D/O MOHAMMED YUSUF KOPPAL, AGE. 10 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 1E. SMT. YASMIN W/O IMRAN OLI, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AHAMED ALI REHMANSHA &
SRI. ASK NAMAZI, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRAITE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/11/2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTIRCT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT IN KID NO.21/2016 THE COPY OF THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the Corporation challenging the award of the Labour Court by which the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal, dated 29.07.2016 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner was charged with causing the death of the rider of a two-wheeler by his rash and negligent driving. After conducting an enquiry, the Corporation came to the conclusion that the allegation against the petitioner had been proved and it proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service on 29.07.2016.
3. The Labour Court by the impugned order has set aside the award on the ground that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case and also after noticing that the rider of the two-wheeler was riding without a licence and under the influence of alcohol. It has in fact noticed that the rider of the two-wheeler abruptly joined the main road when he was coming out from the petrol bunk and he had not noticed that the bus coming from the left side of the road.
4. The Labour Court has therefore concluded that the petitioner could not have been found guilty of negligent driving. It has also noticed that in the postmortem report, it had been recorded that the rider of the two-wheeler was intoxicated and the sketch also indicated that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The Labour Court has accordingly set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement along with back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
5. Learned counsel for the Corporation strenuously submitted that the Labour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned award. It was submitted that since a death had occurred as a result of the petitioner’s driving, the award of the Labour Court was not justified.
6. Learned counsel for the workman on the other hand submitted that the Labour Court after meticulously assessing the evidence has recorded a clear finding exonerating the petitioner of all wrong doing and such a well reasoned order could not be interfered with under Articles
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence has come to the specific conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the two- wheeler, as the two-wheeler was coming out of the petrol bunk and had failed to notice that the bus which was being driven by the petitioner.
8. It is also noticed that the rider of the two-wheeler, according to the postmortem report, was intoxicated.
9. The Labour Court has also considered the sketch and has concluded that no fault could be attributed to the petitioner. In my view the reasoning afforded by the Labour Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
10. It is also stated at the Bar that the petitioner after the award was passed was not able to rejoin the duties as he had suffered a paralytic stroke. In that view of the matter, the Corporation is directed to ensure that the back wages and other consequential benefits awarded by the Labour Court are made over to the wife of the deceased – Workman i.e., Gousia Begam within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petition is accordingly disposed off.
