IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA AT BANGALORE DATEO THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BE FORE THE HOBLE MR,3USTICE G,PATRI SASAVANA GOUD WRIT PETITION NUMBER 23828 OF 1990 Between: M/s Karriataka State Road Transport Corporation K H ,Road Bangalore 560 027 by its Managing Director ,..Petitioner (By Sri Ram Mohari Reddy, Advocate) And: 1 , The Presiding Officer Labour t Gandhi nagar Bangalore 560 009 2, K, A, Ramachdra Reddy son of K. K. Subba Rddy Reddyvare Palli Coorgao ill Poet Srinivasapura Taluk Kolar istrict, . ,Respondents (By 3j M. R, 5hanthakunari? HCSP for R; Sri Nat ayanaswamy Adv, or 2) This writ petiLtiri is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the award dated 21—4199O passed by the first respondent in Ref ,No,40 of 1987 at AnnexureB, This writ petition Corning n for hFring this dey, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioner KSRTC 1 in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 27 of the Constitutirn e2e seeks quashing of the nerd of the Labour Court, Sangalore dated 21e4e1990 at Annexure_s, by which the conductor in the petitioner KSRTC was directed to be reinstated in service with 50 per cent if beck wages, continuity of service end consequential benefits. 2. On proof or misconduct in a domestic enquiry, the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service. H1 raised an industrial dispute in that regard that cee to be referred to the Labour Court, 8 angaiore under Section 1O(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’ for short). Second respondent conceded before the Labour Court with regard to fairness of the domestic enquiry. Documents were marked by consent at Exhibits H—) to 11-16. There were two charges against the second respondent, Sne was that he had not issued one ticket of 60 paise denomination to a passenger nor had he collected fare from the said passenger, and the other was that the second respondent had failed to comply with issue and start rule. Labour Court has found that the Disciplinaryt uthority has rightly held this charge as proved and that there is no perversity e3e in this regard. It is only with regard to the other charge that the Labour Court beg held that the finding of the disciplinary authority According to the that this charge is proved, is perverse. jLebour Court, this charge is not proved. The charge was that the second respondent had re-issued 24 tickets in the third trip after collecting the aid tickets froa the passengers of the first trip. One of the checking staff, neely Muddalingaiah, Traffic Inspector 1 gives evidence in this regaad during the domestic enquiry. It is true, there were entries in respect of these two tickets in the waybill, both with regard to first trip as also with regard to the third trip. There ise evidence of fliddalin aLah to the effec that th’ q tic.cst, had been re—iswed after coélecting then back froer the passengers of the first trip. Sri Venkatesh for the petitioner, on this basis, strenuoufly urges that nothing note was needed to conclude that the charege of geeissue of 2 tickets has stood proved. Sri Nareyanasweny for the second respondent workman points out that, as observed by the Labour Court itself, the aspect of re—issue was an assumption on the part of the 0 a Traffic Inspector tiiddalingaiah and that,on the admission of Mudoalingaiah hiaself,all the passengers hsd slighted and there was no occasicn for him to ascertain as a fact as to whethn it was a case of ta—issuing at all. Sri Narayanaswamy urges that it was only a mistthen nitty by repeating the entry already made in respect of the first trip in the waybill in the third trip also • Sri Venkateth for the petitioner however points out that not all 24 passengers had alighted when the bus was checked but that 11 passengers ware still present there. 3. 5 far as passengers are concerned, it is no doubt true that the presence of ‘Ii passengers at the time the bbs was checked is spoken to by one of the checking staff. But reference to this presence of 11 persons is preceded by the statement that all passengers concerned, who are re—issued with tickets, had alighta - It would only shob that these 11 passengers did not relate to the alleged re—issue of tickets. The checkarc staff, therefore, could only assume that the tickets had been re—issued on tht basis of double entry made in the waybill. That such entry could be a result of mistake appean to be more probable because 1 if th second respondent had issued tickets in the first trip and had made entry In the waybill, and if he had collected the said tickets from certain passengers and had re—issued them in thø third trip, be would not. commit mistake of making entry in that regard once again in the third trip so as to cumpletely tie his hands with regard to charge of re—issue of tickets. The fact that there Is a double entry would probablise the version that it. is a mistaken entry rather then an entry relating to re-issue of tickets The finding of the Labour Court that this charge did notprovetherefore cannot be celled perverse. ith regard to non issue of ticket to one person from whom fare had not aditedly been collected, punishment of diissal from service was disproportionate and the Labour 0 ourt has substituted a lesser punish ment of denial of 50 per cent of beck vages 4 There ja no infirmity in the impugned awatd, Writ Petition dismissed. Li/ JUDGE