- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 64149 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC, BELLARY DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SAREGE SADAN, GULBARGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M. LAXMIPATHI , AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: EX-DRIVER, C/O. HOSPET DEPOT, HOSPET. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 19/11/2010 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN I.D. NO.179/2009 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 19.11.2010 in I.D.No.179/2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent was working as a driver of the Corporation at Hospet depot. The Corporation alleged that on 06.02.1998, the workman being the driver of its bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a stationary lorry, due to which, the passengers sustained injuries and the bus was also damaged. Alleging that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the respondent, articles of charge was issued to the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply wherein it was contended that since the lorry was stationed without any indicator lights, he did not notice the said lorry due to the bright lights of vehicles coming from the opposite direction and although he attempted to avoid the accident, the accident had occurred. Not being satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer was appointed and domestic 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 enquiry was conducted pursuant to which a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding that the allegations against the workman should be established. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to respondent-workman, which was replied by the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 31.12.2005, imposed punishment of reducing two incremental stages of the workman with cumulative effect for recovery of one month’s salary amounting to ₹10,980/- in 20 equal installments and for treating the period of suspension of the workman from 21.2.1998 to 02.09.1998 as a period not on duty. Being aggrieved, the workman instituted proceedings under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472. 3. The workman filed his claim petition before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the enquiry conducted is not fair and proper and also calling into question the order of punishment. The Corporation filed its statement of objections justifying the domestic enquiry as well as the order of punishment. The Tribunal framed the following issues. 2 Hereinafter referred to ‘I.D.Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the first party is fair and correct? 2. Whether the management has proved the alleged misconduct against the first party? 3. Whether the first party claimant proves that the order passed by the respondent bearing No.KST:BLR:TR:ACDT:4199:05-06 dated 31.12.2005 by reducing his pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and recovering Rs.10,908/- towards the cost of damages is illegal? 4. Whether the first party is entitled for the relief as claimed? 5. What order? 4. Both the parties did not produce any oral evidence on Issue No.1, which is treated as the preliminary issue. The Corporation marked Exs.M1 to M24. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.03.2010 held that the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper. Subsequently, the Tribunal by its award dated 19.11.2010 allowed the reference and set aside the order of punishment and directed the Corporation to pay the monetary benefits within six months. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 5. Heard submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and learned counsel for the respondent- workman. 6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation that the workman was responsible for causing the accident in question and the manner in which the accident occurred would itself demonstrate that the workman was negligent. It is further contended that the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of punishment is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman justifies the order of the Tribunal. 8. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and the materials on record have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 Regarding Point No.(i): 9. The Tribunal, while appreciating the relevant aspects of the matter, has record the following finding: “14. M.W.1 admittedly is not the eye witness. He is not the Reporter. He has deposed on the basis of the documents maintained by the management. His evidence is that on 6.2.1998 at 7.00 p.m. the workman being the driver of the bus bearing No. KA- 34/F-320 by his rash and negligent driving dashed the above bus at a place called Alipura against the stationed lorry and as a result of the said accident passengers of the bus sustained injuries and the bus has become damaged. It is in his evidence that the then Traffic Inspector by name R Mohana inspected the spot and submitted the report at Ex.M. 1. It is also in his evidence that Ex.M. 13 is one of the reports touching the accident. He has deposed that the management incurred repair expenses of Rs.28,174/-. During cross-examination he states that he was not examined during domestic enquiry. It is in his cross- examination that since the then Traffic Inspector by name R Mohana has been dismissed from service he cannot be secured as witness. This portion of his evidence cannot be accepted for the reason that any witness can be secured before this Tribunal by resorting to coercive method. No such efforts are bestowed by the management to secure the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 witness by name R Mohana. It is in his cross- examination that Reporter by name R Mohana has not recorded the statement of any witnesses and that except R. Mohana no witnesses are examined during domestic enquiry. He admits that he has no personal knowledge of the accident. Therefore since he is not the eye witness his evidence based on the records is not of any assistance to establish the alleged misconduct. In the unreported decision in Writ Petition No. 1900/1989 disposed of by our Hon'ble High Court on 5.6.1991 the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court has held that in the absence of the examination of the available eye witnesses the management cannot contend that the rashness or negligence of the driver can be established. In the decision reported in 1986(1) LLJ page 101 sour Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order of punishment based on the report containing conclusions without reasons is not sustainable. In the case on hand since issue No.1 is answered in the negative the report of the Enquiry Officer at Ex.M.12 will not lend support to the case of the management. In the decision reported in 1999(1) LLJ page 275 our Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if issue regarding the fairness of domestic enquiry is answered against the management then the management can adduce evidence on merits to establish the alleged misconduct. It is held in the said decision that the record pertaining to domestic enquiry would not constitute fresh evidence and therefore the management has to adduce fresh - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 evidence in support of the alleged misconduct. In the case on hand since the evidence of M.W. 1 who is not the eye witness is not convincing to establish the alleged misconduct the management cannot contend that the misconduct stands proved. Since the misconduct stands not proved the impugned order of punishment cannot sustain and as such the workman is entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly I answer issue Nos.2 to 4 as indicated above.” (emphasis supplied) 10. It is clear from the aforementioned that the Tribunal has noticed that the Corporation has not examined any eyewitness to the accident to demonstrate that the workman was negligent in causing the accident in question. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal vide its order dated 02.03.2010 had recorded a finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper, the Corporation was required to prove the charges by adducing requisite oral and documentary evidence. In the present case, apart from examining M.W.1, who was admittedly not an eyewitness and who deposed on the basis of the records available in the case, has attempted to prove the charges made. It is further pertinent to note that before the Tribunal, the Corporation has not even produced the criminal Court records as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 to the fate of the criminal case that was lodged pursuant to the accident in question. Hence, it is clear that the Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the Corporation has failed to prove the charges alleged against the workman. 11. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman has a prior history and orders of punishment have been passed, which have been placed on record before the Tribunal vide Exs.M.23 and M.24, it is pertinent to note here that when the Corporation has failed to prove the charges alleged against the workman, the question of considering the prior charges/history of the workman does not arise. 12. It is pertinent to note that when the Corporation has not examined any eyewitness to the accident and also not adduced appropriate evidence before the Tribunal to prove the charges alleged. The Corporation has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the Tribunal is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present position. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11363 WP No. 64149 of 2011 13. In view of the aforementioned, the point No.(i) is answered in the negative. Having regard to the factual matrix of the matter, it is just and proper that the writ petition be dismissed by imposing suitable cost. However, in view of the fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cost is not imposed with a caveat that in the event similar such petitions are filed by the Corporation, the same be would dealt with appropriately by passing suitable orders. 14. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the above writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner-Corporation to calculate and pay the monetary benefits pursuant to the order of the Tribunal within an outer limit of six weeks from today, failing which, the Corporation shall be liable to pay the monetary benefits with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the award of the Tribunal till the date of payment. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7