- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 996 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSURU RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP ROAD MYSURU BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: M. PRASHANTH S/O LATE V. MAHADEVU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS No.24, L/1A, K.M. BLOCK RAJENDRANAGAR MYSURU-570 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 23.03.2022 IN WP No.55714/2017 CONSEQUENTLY THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN IID No.25/2015 Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 DATED 21.02.2017 (ANNEXURE-F IN WP No.55714/2017) BE SETASIDE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2022 in W.P.No.55714/2017. 2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent- workman with back wages. 3. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions advanced in the writ petition and found that the findings of the Labour Court could not be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review. It was also found that 50% of the back wages was awarded to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 respondent and that the writ petitioner could not be held to be aggrieved by the said award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact, the findings of the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge were vitiated and that the appeal is liable to be allowed atleast in respect of 50% of back wages as ordered by the Labour Court. 5. It is contended that memo of charges issued to the respondent- workman was to the effect that he failed to issue luggage tickets for five units of luggage and failed to collect Rs.435/- towards luggage charges from the passenger who was carrying the luggage. It is submitted that inspection had been conducted when the bus reached to Mysore from Bombay and that there were only four passengers in the bus. One Rajesh who was carrying the luggage had paid the penalty with respect of 5 units of luggage. It is therefore contended that though the respondent attempted to state that the luggage ticket had been issued for a sum of Rs.2,595/-, the said ticket had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 been issued in the name of one Muneer Ahmed and that in view of the fact that one Rajesh was found with the luggage without luggage ticket at Mysore, the respondent was inflicted with penalty of dismissal in the enquiry. It is contended that since the ticket issued to another passenger was sought to be taken advantage by the workman, the findings of the Labour Court were perverse and ought to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would on the other hand, contend that the respondent who was a driver-cum-conductor had collected Rs.2,595/- as luggage charges in respect of 30 units of luggage. It was the specific case of the respondent that though the luggage carried in the bus at the relevant time was only 12 units, he had charged for 30 units and that the charge that he had not collected in respect of 5 units, which were found in the bus when the inspection was conducted, was incorrect. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 7. It is submitted that in the light of Ex.M11 which was produced and marked before the Labour Court, the findings of the Labour Court was perfectly legal and valid. Learned counsel would rely on the findings of the Labour Court and contend that the grounds urged in this appeal are not tenable. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent would also place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors.1 in support of the contention that writ jurisdiction of the Court should not be exercised as an appellate Court and the findings of fact are not liable to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction. 9. We have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The charge memo as against the respondent raised the following specific charge; 1 AIR 1964 SC 477 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 "ARTICLES OF CHARGE I, the Divisional Controller and the Disciplinary Authority of Mysore Rural Division of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred under the KSRTC (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1971 and amendments of 1992 as also in terms of Regulation 19(2), is of opinion that there are grounds to enquire into the truth in respect of the allegations made against Sri M Prashanth Driver Cum Conductor, B No 5115, Mysore Rural Division Depot 2, hence I issue the following charges: CHARGES: You were on duty 19.9.2013 In schedule No 103/104 in Volvo bus bearing No F 2003 as a Driver Cum Conductor, the vehicle came tobe checked at Mysore Bus Station, during the checking it was found that there were 04+00+00 passengers, the luggage in the vehicle was checked it was found that you had not issued luggage ticket for 5 units of luggage (Foot wear in 12 bags) being carried from Mumbai to Mysore and had not collected fare of Rs 435 towards luggage charges not issued valid luggage ticket. Thus you have caused loss of revenue to the corporation and acted in a manner unbecoming of a corporation servant. Statement of Imputations: Sri M Prashanth Driver Cum conductor B no 5115, Mysore Rural Division, was on duty on 19.9.2013 in schedule - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 No 103/104 in Volvo bus bearing No F 2003, the vehicle came tobe checked at Mysore Bus Station, during the checking it was found that there were 04+00+00 passengers, the luggage in the vehicle was checked it was found that he had not charged for 5 unit of luggage(12 bags filled with Footwear) being carried from Mumbai to Mysore and had not collected fare of Rs 435 towards luggage charges nor issued valid luggage ticket. Thus he caused loss of revenue to the corporation and acted in a manner unbecoming of a corporation servant." 10. The findings of the Enquiry Officer as against the respondent are as follows; "FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY: The bus bearing No F 5003 conducted by the delinquent on 19.9.13 as a conductor plying from Mumbai to Mysore was checked after he completed the duty, the passengers with their luggage was checked, it was found that the delinquent has not collected Rs 435 nor issued valid luggage ticket towards 5 units of luggage which were found in 12 bags filled with footwear, the checking officials levied penalty of Rs 870 (two times) to the owner of the luggage, penalty receipt was written, the signature of the owner of luggage as also the delinquent was secured, a copy of which was issued to the luggage owner. An inspection report and also ETM tickets was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 secured from the conductors ETM. For the irregularities a report was submitted later. One of the checking officials Sri Mayigowda was present during the enquiry, he tendered his evidence and produced the documents in support of charges. The delinquent conductor denied the charges. The same has been discussed in terms of his objections and the following findings is rendered. The delinquent has not stated anything with regard to the luggage being carried in 12 bags from Mumbai to Mysore, but stated that on the said day he has charged for 30 units for the said luggage. He has not produced the luggage ticket and though was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the same during the enquiry he has not produced any documents. Further he has produced the copy of the receipt for having purchased the said material to show that in the bus there was luggage containing footwear weighing 100+40+100=240 kgs in the bus. In the said receipt the purchaser's name is mentioned as Sri Muneer Ahmed Mysore. During the process of checking the person who was caught for not paying luggage fare for 5 units was Sri Rajesh, Mysore. From this it is evident that the luggage belonged to different persons. To the question posed that the luggage which was confiscated was not weighed on the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 date of checking, the reporter has answered. The delinquent should have objected and should have demanded to check the weight of the luggage. After the delinquent signed the offence memo, penalty receipt, registration of the case, no purpose will be served to raise this plea during the enquiry. The delinquent has not been able to prove the charges are false, therefore the delinquent Sri M Prashantha D/C, B No 5115 is held tobe guilty of charges." 11. The Labour Court, in its award has considered the contentions of the parties and has specifically come to the conclusion that the charges as raised against the respondent did not stand prove in the enquiry. Paragraph 18 of the award would be relevant, which reads as follows. "18. On perusal of the evidence adduced by both parties it is clear that, the articles of charge though contains the details that the First Party has failed to charge the luggage for 5 units which was carried from Mumbai to Mysuru, the very fact that the ticket generated by the checking squad from ETM machine shows that the First Party had collected the luggage for 30 units at Rs.2595/-. It is not the case of Second - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 Party that over and above 30 units the First Party had to charge for another 5 units but he has failed to do it. In view of the very reason that the articles of charge contains only the charge in respect of carrying luggage contained in chapel bags the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that Ex.M-10 the penalty receipt in which it appears that the luggage belonged to a different passenger who carried the luggage of 5 units has no basis at all and It is deviated from the charge leveled against the First Party, under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no consistency in the charge framed by the Second Party against the First Party but the Enquiry Officer has concluded the enquiry that the charge levelled against the First Party was proved." 12. The learned Single Judge has also considered the contentions advanced in the writ petition and had found that the basis of the allegation as against the respondent itself was not established and that petitioner's document i.e., Ex.M11 shows that the respondent, on weighing the entire luggage, had charged for that. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4463-DB WA No. 996 of 2022 13. Having considered the contentions advanced and in the light of the findings in the enquiry and the award of the Labour Court, we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the appellant that the findings of the Labour Court were perverse to an extent, which requires interference by the writ Court exercising the power of judicial review. Even from the materials now placed on record, we are unable to hold that the judgment of the learned Single Judge requires interference in an intra-Court appeal. The appeal fails. The same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10