IN TB HIGH COURt OP K&RNAT AU AT BANGALORE Dated this the 4th day of June, 1998 Before Tia HON’BL.. MR. JiSf ICE V.P. MORAN KUMAR writ Petition No. 15846 of 1998 The Divisional. Cortroller Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, hassan livision, hasssu’ 573 201. ..Petitioner (By Ms. %kshmi, Mv. for Sat. Shireen hafrullah,Aav.) And: 1. Tts Workman Represented by the Secretary District Transport & General Labour Union, Sakleshpur- 573 134 2. The Presiding Officer Labour Court ,Chickmalur. .. Respondents (By ) This hrit Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 ox the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or my other appropriate writ or direction to quash the order dated 31e31995 passed i’ IJ.Ref. Zlo.401/9C passed 1r the Mabos Court ,Chiokmagalur, Annexureek. This getition coming on for Preliminaryhearing, this aq the Court made Ha following: u2IER 1 —2— Pet it toner herein challenges Annexure—A award passed by the Lgbour Court. Tie writ petition is hopelesslyj bel*ed. The award was passed on 31t March, 1995. A certified copy was applied for on 4.12.1997 aid secured the copy on the sac day i.e., on 4.12.1997. The writ petition is filed only on 27.5.1998. There is inordinete dely infiling tie writ petition. 2. That apart it is not a proceedings for which tie KSZC should further spend money. Alleging the worker had not issied tickets to certain passeigers while he was conducting the his on route Hasssi — Gubbi on 23.9.1984, charges were framed agaimt the worker. Domestic enquiry was held. At the domestic enquiry the worker was found guilty. For this the Manement had withheld two increments of the worker. Thet Was the issue in challenge by the worker before the Labour Court. The Labotr Court held th impo— sit ion of the std punishnent is too hart. Therefore it I! I e3e \‘\ it set aside the punishment by the order impugned herein. In the course of hearing it held that the domestic enquiry held is not fair soS proper. The Labour Court discussed the issue t length in this behalf as well. Thereafter it held that the Nanagemert is not justified in inflicting the punishmert in question. Therefore it set aside the same. The said award is challenged in this proceeding by the Manageiment. 3. It is to be noted, as stated earlier thst there is inordinfl dels in moving this Court. One fails to underd aid why such delq is occuring. In this petition evidence has been adduced by the worker. It shovstbat there was no collection of bus fare as alleged by the Corporation and the ohecflng staff had collected penalty from the ticketless passengers. Therefore the alleged misconduct of the worker could not have been held as a serion misconduct. If as a matter of fact the worker had issued tickets aid not collected the fare from the passengers it is a seriais misconduct. In this case penalty has been imposed on as .t,S.t...,laae .‘... —L ...a... ..a..... ..... .. on the oassengers who have travelled without ticks and as such the Corporation has not suffered any loss and the Corporation should not have taken course of iaposir a punishment which will have repercussion throighout his career. Therefore the Labour Court was justified in holding that the puniaIent in question is too harsh. There are no grounds to interfere with the irnpugned order. The writ petition is ciisnissed accordirgly, \.i vh/—