Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22356
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
C.M. POONACHA, J
THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC, BELLARY DIVISION – Appellant
Versus
SRI. M. LAXMIPATHI – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 64149 OF 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI
For the Respondents: SRI. RAVI HEGDE
The court emphasized the necessity of eyewitness testimony and adequate evidence in upholding disciplinary actions by employer, establishing the management's failure to prove allegations of misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)(d) - Writ petition filed challenging the Tribunal’s award on grounds of unfair domestic enquiry and misconduct allegations against the employee - It was held that no eyewitnesses were examined, and the management failed to substantiate its claims. (Paras 9-12)
(B) Employment Law - The management must adhere to due process in disciplinary actions; failure to prove misconduct can render punishments unsustainable. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was a driver who contended that an accident was not his fault, while the Corporation claimed negligence. The Tribunal found the domestic inquiry flawed.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by the management was insufficient to demonstrate negligence, leading to the Tribunal's ruling in favor of the workman.
Issues: The key issue concerned the fairness of the domestic inquiry and whether the allegations of misconduct were adequately proven.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of eyewitness testimonies and proper evidence rendered the management's case unproven, thus upholding the Tribunal's award.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the circumstances surrounding the accident and disciplinary proceedings. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts indicate the respondent's actions in the accident. (Para 2 , 4) |
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 19.11.2010 in I.D.No.179/2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, [Hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”]
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent was working as a driver of the Corporation at Hospet depot. The Corporation alleged that on 06.02.1998, the workman being the driver of its bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a stationary lorry, due to which, the passengers sustained injuries and the bus was also damaged. Alleging that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent, articles of charge was issued to the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply wherein it was contended that since the lorry was stationed without any indicator lights, he did not notice the said lorry due to the bright lights of vehicles coming from the opposite direction and although he attempted to avoid the accident, the accident had occurred. Not being satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer was appointed and domestic enquiry was conducted pursuant to which a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding that the allegations against the workman should be established. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to respondent-workman, which was replied by the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 31.12.2005, imposed punishment of reducing two incremental stages of the workman with cumulative effect for recovery of one month’s salary amounting to ₹10,980/- in 20 equal installments and for treating the period of suspension of the workman from 21.2.1998 to 02.09.1998 as a period not on duty. Being aggrieved, the workman instituted proceedings under Section
10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , [Hereinafter referred to ‘I.D.Act’]
3. The workman filed his claim petition before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and also calling into question the order of punishment. The Corporation filed its statement of objections justifying the domestic enquiry as well as the order of punishment. The Tribunal framed the following issues.
1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the first party is fair and correct?
2. Whether the management has proved the alleged misconduct against the first party?
3. Whether the first party claimant proves that the order passed by the respondent bearing No.KST:BLR:TR:ACDT:4199:05-06 dated 31.12.2005 by reducing his pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and recovering Rs.10,908/- towards the cost of damages is illegal?
4. Whether the first party is entitled for the relief as claimed?
5. What order?
4. Both the parties did not produce any oral evidence on Issue No.1, which is treated as the preliminary issue. The Corporation marked Exs.M1 to M24. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.03.2010 held that the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper. Subsequently, the Tribunal by its award dated 19.11.2010 allowed the reference and set aside the order of punishment and directed the Corporation to pay the monetary benefits within six months. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present writ petition.
5. Heard submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and learned counsel for the respondent-
workman.
6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation that the workman was responsible for causing the accident in question and the manner in which the accident occurred would itself demonstrate that the workman was negligent. It is further contended that the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of punishment is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman justifies the order of the Tr
