- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 60069 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: B P SHIVAKUMAR, S/O B. PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A T. NULENUR AT & POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 539. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B S SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DTD.2.1.2016 VIDE ANNEX-F TO THIS WRIT PETITION PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT HUBBALLI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the award dated 02.01.2016 passed by the industrial tribunal. In terms of the impugned award, the reference under section 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act, 1947') is rejected. The penalty imposed by the respondent- employer deducting the basic pay of the workman by 3 incremental stages permanently, is confirmed. 2. The petitioner/workman was subjected to domestic enquiry on the charges that on 25.12.2007 while he was driving the bus from Davangere to Shivamogga at about 09:45 a.m., when the vehicle came near KMF dairy at Honnalli he caused accident on account of rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of 11 year old girl. 3. The petitioner denied the charges and took a stand that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the 11 year old girl who suddenly crossed the road from left to right and despite the best efforts made by the petitioner, the accident could - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 not be avoided. The disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed the penalty as referred to above. 4. Before the Labour Court, the enquiry was held to be fair and proper. The evidence was led on victimization. The Labour Court concluded that the petitioner is guilty of charges and uphold the penalty. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a criminal case was filed against the petitioner alleging offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and in the said proceedings, the eye witnesses were examined. The witnesses have given a statement that the accident took place on account of negligence of 11 year old school girl. 6. He further submits that in the domestic enquiry, no eye witness is examined. The officers of the Corporation who conducted the enquiry subsequent to the accident have been examined to conclude that the petitioner is guilty. He would also submit that in the cross examination, the witness examined on behalf of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 Corporation has admitted that the accident took place despite the efforts made by the driver to avoid the accident and the management witness has stated that the driver should have put in more effort to avoid the accident. 7. Referring to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the accident, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has done his best to avoid the accident and thus, he would urge that the impugned award be set-aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the accident is due to the petitioner driving the vehicle at a high speed. It is submitted that the sketch produced by the officer of the Corporation would disclose that there was a 10 to 15 feet tyre mark on the road which by itself would suggest that the driver was driving the vehicles at a high speed. It is further submitted that even assuming that the petitioner's version is correct, then also the petitioner erred in taking - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 the vehicle to the right side when the school girl was allegedly running from left to the right side of the road. It is his submission that the driver should have taken the vehicle to the left referring to the circumstances. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. The fact that the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case for an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC is not in dispute. The copy of the judgment is produced. In the said judgment, JMFC has recorded a finding that 3 eye witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution have admitted that the girl was negligent and she suddenly tried to cross the road despite the witnesses asking her not to cross the road, the JMFC has taken a view that the negligence is not proved. 11. It is relevant to notice that in the domestic enquiry no eye witness was examined. The best eyewitness could have been the conductor or the passenger in the said bus. They have not been examined. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 The respondent -Corporation has not made any attempt to examine any of the eye witnesses named in the charge sheet filed by the police. 12. Only by referring to the 10 to 15 feet tyre mark found on the road, it is urged that the driver was driving the vehicle at a high speed. When it comes to rash and negligent act, the speed alone cannot be the criteria. It is noticed from the records that driver had made an attempt to avoid the accident when 11 year old girl tried to cross the road all of a sudden. 13. From the materials placed on record, it is not possible to take a call as to whether the driver should have taken the vehicle to his left side or on the right side when 11 year old girl tried to cross the road. It is quite possible that a driver is taken aback. 14. From the cross-examination made by the petitioner to the management witness, it is noticed that even the management witness has admitted that the driver has made an attempt to avoid the accident. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 However, the witness proceeds further to say that the driver should have put in more efforts. On what basis the witness would say that more effort was required from the driver to avoid the accident is not forthcoming from any other material. As already noticed, the eyewitnesses are not examined. The witnesses examined before the JMFC have stated that the accident took place on account of negligence of the school girl. 15. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would urge that in a domestic enquiry alleging negligence, the degree of proof that is required is not as high as what is required in a criminal case, still this Court is of the view that mere sketch produced by the respondent is not good enough to hold that the driver was negligent and responsible in causing the accident. 16. This Court is of the view that the other evidence placed on record more particularly, the finding of JMFC which is based on the evidence of 3 eye witnesses who have said that the schoolgirl was negligent does not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 enable the Court to place reliance on the sketch to hold that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. 17. Unfortunately, these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court. The Labour Court proceeded based on report prepared by the officer of the respondent-Corporation who admittedly is not an eye witness. 18. For the aforementioned reasons, the finding that the petitioner was rash and negligent is a finding recorded without any evidence which calls for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned award dated 02.01.2016 in I.D. No.169/2012 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi is quashed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25023 WP No. 60069 of 2016 (iii) The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the order. (iv) Benefits shall be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54