/ f .‘ 2 1N ThE HIGH CCIJRT OF KARNATAXA AT BAIGA LORE DATED ThIS ThE 4Th DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE ThE HON’BtS MR .JUST ICE G.PATRI sAsAvmA GCUD WRIT PETITiON MJMBER 23470 OF 1990 nflflenfln nnnn eenn Between: 1. The Karnetae State Road Transport Corporation Central Offices Bangalora 560 027 ‘1 represented by its Chief Law Officer 2. The Deputy General Manager end Divisional Controller KSRIt, 8Th Oiviton Bangelore 580 027 —Petitioners (By 5 ri V. Mukunde Heron, Advocate) And: 1. Vankatesh Neidu son of Jangamaiah No .73, 2nd Cross, 6th Main, III Stage, 3.P.Nagar, Bangalor e—78 2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Berqalore —Re,ondents (By Sri V. Lakshmina’ayana, Adv. for R—1; Sst.H.R.Shanthakumeri, HCGP for a) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 end 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash thiE award geted 7—9—1989 at Annexure—6 made by the Labour ‘ourt, Bm galore in Reference No.98 of 1987 to the extent it sets aside the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and directs reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with continuity of service but without beck ages end with a direction to withhold two increments with cumulative effect. This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER 44 a I ORDER Ms. Shanthakuinari, learned HCGP appears for the second respondent. 2. The KSRTC bus in which first respondent was working as conductor was chicked beer Aehak Pillar, Bangslore on 18—10—1981, and, according to the petitioner management, it wss found that the first respondent Conductor had failed to issue tickets to two passengers inspite of hsving collected fare from thea and had re—issued tickets to five passengers. In this regard,e disciplinary enquiry was held against the first respondent, and, on proof ef misconduct 1 he was dismissed froe service. He raised an industrial dispute in thst regard, that came to be referred to the Labour Ceurt, Bsnqalora under Section 1O(1)Cc) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1941 (‘Act’ for short). Before the Labour Court, fairness of the domestic enquiry was conceded by the first respondent workman. Labour Court did not find my perversity in the finding reached by the disciplinary authority with regard to proof of charge.Acting under Section hA of the Act, however the Labour Courtbeing of the opinion that the punislaent q —3-I I of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the said charges, set aside the said order of dismissal end in its piece, substituted a lesser punishment of complete denial of back wages in addition to withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. With this lesser punishment, the Labour Court, by its award dated 7—9—1989 at AnnexureeB, directed reinstetement ef the first respondent with the benefit of continuity of service. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, petitioner KSRTC seeks quashing of the said award. 3. Fairness of the domestic enquiry having been conceded and the charge having been held proved, the only question that arises is as to whether, in holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the said charge and in substituting lesser punishment of complete denial of back wages in addition to withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the Labour Court has acted orbitrarily. Sri Mukunda Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that having regard to the misconduct of pilferage that is established, the first respondent deserves 4— the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. Naving regard to the circumstances of the case, I em of the opinion that the said extreme punish ment of dismissal from service was disproportionate t the charge proved, and, even the lesser punishment that the Labour has substituted, namely withholding full back wages and two increments with cumulative effect, is not on the lenient side, and, is a punishment that would adequately commensurate with the charge proved. The is: therefore, no arbitrariness in the Labour Court frrr acting under Section hA of the Act. 4. Petition dismissed, Sd/ I TTh j