IN THE HI (Ii QOIJRT OF KA?NATAKA AT BA NJATOB!’ DAT!D IS THE 5Th DAY OP JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE UON’BL! MB, JUSPIE V.P. !HAN KUNAP BITPET!r3ON IO: 2I4I2Jj99 BETWEEN : The Karnataka State Road Transport 0oporatioa, Bep,by the Ohief Law Offioex, 1w Officer, law Dept ‘Trarpot Bha7an’, Qentral Offto es, Post Bag No 2778, Sha nt i— nagar, K.H. Boad, Banpalore—560 027. ...?etitiotr ( By Smt. )ela Arun, for Sri. S,V. Jagannath, Adv for petitioner) AND 1. A. Ibrahim, 0/c The Gen,Seoretazy, K.S.R,T,Q, Staff & Workers Union, )idan Road, Nanga lore, Dakshina Kannada. The Presiding Off iaer, Labour Oouxt, Nanagalore, Dakshina Kannada. ....Pespondents ( By Sri, BB.5. Gowda, Advocate for R— I B—I notice dispersed with ) — — This writ ‘petition is filed under Articles 226 of the constitution of India, praying to quash vide Annexure—A dt.28.1O.95 by —2, etc., bis writ ‘petition coming on for preliminary hearing in B Groun this thy, the Court made the following: The ‘petitioner is the Corporation. The worker in question waS a driver. Alleging tht he ove the vehicle in a rash .d negligent manner whiOb resulted in an accideflt disc ipli— nary action was ken against him and initially a punishment of redtion of one increment was ordered. Thereafter it was enhanced and reduc tion of his ray by two increment was imposed. The worker raised a dispte before the Iabwr Court. The tbour Court held that there is no fair at proper enquiry and it held that domestic enquiry is invalid. It further held that unishment im’posed is dis’nro’rortionate S -3— to the charges levelled against the wo*er and it sets ide the punishment Istosed. The award of the labour Gourt is challenged before this Qourt. 2. I have heard learned Qouitel for the petitioner& There Is no rep!esentation cc behalf of the worker. 3. I do Dot think that the award of the labour Qourt calls fox interferewe. The punishment imposed on the worker Is dtsyitopor tionate to the charges. The charges are beed on the domestic eruiry lihen tie domestic enquiry Is setaside, it follows that punishment latosed should also go. The evidelne led by the management is not suffia lent to establish that the worker Is guilty of charges. There Is no clear aLit evideme to establish that the worker “VI was driving the vehicle in a rash and negli.. gent manner resulting in acident. Therefcme, tne I&bour Qourt has rightly setaside the punishment imiosed. In this view of the matter, I confirm the ard of the Iabwr Qourt, Writ petition dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE 4 1 \ ksp/—