c—t IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOtE DATED THIS THE 4Th DAY OF lINE 1998 BEFORE ThE HON ‘SlY MR .JJSTICE G .PATRI BASAVANA GOUO WRIT PETITION MJMBER 26000 OF 1990 sane_asceases aaeeeaaanennaeeee Between: 1 • The ICarnetaka State Reed Transport Corporation Central Offices Bangalore 560 027 by its Chief Law Officer 2. The Deputy General Manager and Divisional Controller KSRTC Hassan Divi4on Hassei —Petitioners (By Sri V. ‘iikunde Menon, Advocate) And’ 1. Sri D. T. Thiamegowda do S. S. Padmaraje No .53, 2nd Floor Van), Vilas Road Opp: National College Basevanagudi Bangalore 560 004 2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Mangalore —Respondents (By Sri V. Lakshainerayana, Mv. for R—1; Satjhanthakjaari, HCGP for R-2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the award dated 7—5-19q0 at AnnezureeD passed by the Labour Court, Mengalora in Reference No.65 of 1986. Thia writ petition coming on for htaring this day, the Court aade the following’ ORDER e2e ORDER Ms. Shenthakumarl, learned HCGP appears for the second respondent. 2. On the charge of failure to issue tickets to 14 passengers inspite of collectin; fare from the said passengers, th first respondeit conductor in the petitioner ICSRlt was proceeced against in a disciplinary enquiry, and, on proof of misconduct, he was dismissed from service. In the industrial dispute raised in that regard, Labour Court held the domestic enquiry to be invalid. On sppreciation of the evidence on record, Labour Cost held the charge as proved but held the puishment of dismissal from service to be disproportionate to the said charge and substituted in its place a sser punishment of complete denial of back wages in ditien to withholding two increments with cumulative effect. With this lesser purishmant, abour Court,by its award dateu 7—a-1990 at Annexure-O directed reinstatement of the first respondent with the benefit of con inuity of service and consequential benefits. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the employer KSRIC seeks I;, -3— Quashing of the said award 3, The charge having 1 held proved, the only question that arises is as to vhether the Labour Court acted arbitrarily under Section hA of the lndustril Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’ for short) in substituting the above said lesser punishment in place of punishment of dismissal from service • Having regard to the charge proved, I am of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service is dis— pruportionate to the said charge anc 4 that the lesser punishment that is substituted by the Labour Gourt under Section hA of the Act, namely complete denial of back wages and with— nolding of two increments witn cumulative effect is an appripriate lesser punishments There is no arbitrariness on the part of the Labour Court In so acting under Section hA of the Act, 4. There is no infirmity in the imougned award, Writ Petition dismissed. / TTri J IJL1c