IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA?!iATAKA AT BAATOR! DATED THIS PH! 8TH DA OF J1J’ 1098 BFPOR! THE HO N’BL! ?P. JTICE V.P. ?OHAN XTW4R w!iP_V!T!TION Ni 2246/1998 AN RI TION t 1732P1998 BETWEE JL1 998 $angaa na, do !shwarapa Nandoox, 38 years, P/o Tilgol, Post, Taluk & Dist; Gulbarga. .. .Petitioner ( By Sri. B. Prabbudevaru, Advocate ) 1. The Divisional Controller, Kar nataka State Road Trat tort Corporation Gulbarga Divlsiofl, M,S,K. Mills Road, Gulbarga. 2 The Presiding Officer, Ibour Court, Gulbarga. ( By Sri. C. Ramakrishna, 11Cc? for R—2, Sri. K. Lakshrninarayana Rao for P-i ) • • .Pespondents S ¾ S 2 — This writ petition is filed under ArtIcles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to modify the miard psed by the labour Court aM granting full bnokvagee from the date of dismissal i.e., 15.C94 till the date of ainstatement together with eontinuity of servIce and coiwequential benefits: VaPstt 175211gq$ S Karsatata State 3 cad Transport Corporation Central dffioes, K.!. tad, bangalore46o 027, its Chief 1 Officer. ....Petitioner (By Sri; x. Takshminarayara Bao Advocate ) 1. Sri. Sangansa, Sb Iswazappa, Er-Oondintor, K SJ.TA Gulbarga De$t—i, Tilgol, Diets Gulberga 2. The Presiding Officer, labour Court, Qulbarga. ....Bespondent C By Sri. B. Prathudevaru, Advocate for LI, Sri. C. flamabishna, HQGP for 3—2) 4/ e e5. this writ petition Is fil.d under Articles 226 and 227 of the OonstI$tutios of mite ,ain to quash Annerure—* dt. 23.10.19 by these writ petitions coming on for prellainasy hazing in B Group, this day, the Uourt male We followings gJJfl the atard made by the Labour Court Sn I.D, No.45/94 Is challenged the manageme as ale o the worker, the worker in question was a conductor, While he was on duty on 08,it1990 he oterating a be whiohas over-crowded with 94 adult passengers including 5 children, It Is alleged by the maragement that the worker had not Issued luggage tickets for 75 units, Charges were framed agaftt him and domestic enquiry was conducted, the woXker was found guilty of charges and thereafter he w dismissed from service with effect from 15,4,1994, He made an application under Section -4— 10(4—A) of the I,D, Act, challenging the dismissal. A preliminary issue was framed regarding the validity of the domestia enquiry. The Tbour aourt found that domestic enquiry is not fair and proper. It therefore called uoon the management to lead evidence. The management did not lead evidence but produced docume ots • On considering the evidence on records the tabcur court held that the worker had not collected the luggage charges of .67.5O and he ws trying to find out the passengers who were carrying the luggage and as the bus was crowded he amid not find them out, It as at that stage where the checking officials checked the bue Theref ore it held that punishnent of dismissal is disproportiotnte to the charges and the worker annot be found guilty-. —5— ?ending the dispute interim order to be granted, whereby the worker .e.s ordered to be reitated, Now in the final order the tabour ouxt setaside the order of dismissal and called upon the management to reinstate the worker. In doing so, it held as follows: “ The claimant I Party is ent itled for baa kwages at the rate of 75% of the eges what he was getting at the time of dismissal or 75% of the wages in the current rate whichever is more from the date of granting the interim relief ie, 11794 The claimant is deemed to have been continued in service from the said date. “ Mr. Lakshminarayana ao, learned ourel fox the management has filed V.P.Ho,1732/98 challenging the award in so fax as it lates —6— to reinstatenent afl award of 75% baøkwages. Whereas, ?. Prabhu evari, learned øounsel on behalf of the worker has challenged the ard in W.1’.No.2246/98 for the denial of 25% back— wages. 4 I have heard respective Oounsel. I do not think that the finding of the Ibouz ouxt that the charges levelled agaitt the worker is not proved calles for interference. It s in eviden. e that the worker was trying to find out the passengers to whom the luggage belonged. It s also in evidence that the bus was over crowded and it was at that point of time that the bus was checked. In such cix— cumstances, ofle cannot say that there was ill motive on the part of the worker in not Issuing the luggage tickets. The finding in this behalf does not cell for interference; —7— The furthez question would be regarding the lief to be granted to the worker, If the worker is not found guilty of charges, necessarily, the dismissal has to be setaside The labour Court has rightly dofle so. Therefore, the further question would be the quantum of backwages to be awatded. The Labour Court has awarded 75% backwages. I modify the same and hoN that he is entitled to 75% backwages as he was being raid on the date of dismissal till 11.7.1996. For the subsequent period, he Is entitled for full baokwages. The denial of continuity of service is setaside T he award is modified in this behalf Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, Sd/ JUDGE ksp/