- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.36328 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: B.M.T.C. K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER-560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: ANWAR KHAN S/O.JAMAL SAHEB AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION BTS NORTH DIVISION NO.6 SIRUR PARK ROAD SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 05.08.2021 PASSED IN I.D.NO.254/2011 BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-BMTC seeking to quash the impugned award dated 05.08.2021 passed in I.D.No.254/2011 by the Industrial Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal), Bengaluru. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-BMTC that the respondent who was employed as a driver with the petitioner was on duty on 25.03.2008 in Bus bearing registration No.KA 01 F 1249 plying on route Timber Layout to Shivajinagar. While he was driving near Richmond Road Flyover, the respondent-driver drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner and got into a ditch, as result of which, the front main leaf of the Bus was cut. Due to the same, the bus dashed against East Block Compound. Consequently, the conductor of the Bus was thrown out of the bus, sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital and further 8 passengers travelling in the bus sustained injuries. In view of the accident and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 negligence, the articles of charge dated 20.06.2008 were issued to the respondent-driver for alleged rash and negligent driving, to which, the respondent-driver replied denying all the charges. 2.1 It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent was subject to disciplinary proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer vide a dissent note dated 02.09.2009. Consequently, the respondent-driver was issued with show cause notice, to which a reply was submitted by him. It is further stated that the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, held the charges to be proved and consequently, imposed an order of punishment dated 28.10.2009 reducing the basic pay of the respondent by two annual incremental stages with cumulative effect. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 2.2 It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order of punishment imposed, the respondent raised dispute, which was referred to the tribunal. The petitioner had appeared and contested the matter. The tribunal held that the Disciplinary Enquiry conducted as fair and proper. 2.3 The BMTC got examined a witness as MW.1 and the workman-driver got examined himself as a witness as WW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.C1 to C24. 2.4 Upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the order of punishment was not justified and consequently set-aside the order, which is impugned before this Court. 3. Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka for petitioner- BMTC vehemently contends that the award passed by the tribunal is perverse, erroneous and contrary to the materials placed on record. She further contends that despite the tribunal recording a finding with regard to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 death of the conductor and several others being injured, it has failed to appreciate the fact of the theory of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur'. She further contends that the accident is a fact and the manner in which the accident occurred would clearly establish the negligence on the part of the respondent-driver. The death of the conductor and inmates passengers got injured due to the accident, is not in dispute. She further contends that the punishment imposed against the respondent is minor. The tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment. 3.1 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal came to an erroneous conclusion with regard to no report in respect of mechanical condition of the bus being bad. She also contends that the vehicle did not have any defect and it is due to the negligence on the part of the respondent-workman, the accident occurred and except interested statement of the respondent-workman, no material evidence was placed before the tribunal to come to the conclusion that the driver was not negligent in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 driving the bus. She further contends that the respondent has not adduced any evidence of supporting witnesses, for example, inmates and passengers of the bus. The tribunal has not taken these aspects into consideration. Therefore, on these grounds, she sustains the minor punishment imposed and same ought not to have interfered by the tribunal. 4. At the stage of hearing, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions put-forth by learned counsel for petitioner and does not find any need to issue notice to the respondent-workman, as this is a fit case to reject the petition at the stage of admission itself for the following reasons: This Court is not inclined to repeat the facts as the same are already narrated hereinabove. It is not in dispute that the respondent is working as a driver with the petitioner-BMTC. At the instance of the respondent- workman, the matter was referred to the Industrial Dispute by the Government of Karnataka vide order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 03.10.2011 being the competent authority. Notice was issued; enquiry was conduced and the same was held to be fair and proper, which was conceded by the respondent-workman. The matter was posted for evidence with regard to victimisation of the employee and since the enquiry came to be conceded as fair and proper by the respondent-workman, the same was not gone into by the tribunal. The questions for consideration was whether there was any unfair labour practice by the petitioner- BMTC while imposing punishment and whether the punishment ordered was sustainable. 4.1 Several documents were produced by the petitioner-BMTC to establish its case of negligence on the part of the respondent-workman and to sustain the punishment imposed against the respondent-workman. The workman examined himself as WW.1. 4.2 Primarily, the allegation made by the petitioner- BMTC against the respondent-workman for rash and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 negligent driving of the Bus and having driven the bus into a ditch and the main leaf of the bus was cut, due to which, the accident occurred and consequently, the conductor was thrown out of the bus, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same and 08 passengers along with him sustained injuries. An enquiry was conducted and the charges were not proved. However, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted and punishment was imposed on the respondent-workman reducing basic pay by two annual incremental stages with cumulative effect. 4.3 It was the contention of the petitioner-BMTC before the tribunal that the respondent-workman was involved in several cases during his service period. However, learned counsel for petitioner now contends that despite giving sufficient opportunities to reform himself by imposing minor punishments, he has not rectified himself and he has committed misconduct once again. It is also the contention of learned counsel that apart from examining the respondent-workman, he has not examined - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 any other person and no documents are produced to substantiate his case. Therefore, the order passed by the tribunal requires to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner-BMTC and perused the impugned award and documents annexed along with the petition morefully with regard to evidence adduced by the parties. 6. The tribunal has carefully gone through all these materials placed on record and analysed each of the evidence, both oral and documentary and after considering the same, came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent-workman in causation of the accident. The tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, so also, the cross-examination and the documents produced including the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the Enquiry Officer, who has given the finding holding the respondent-workman is not guilty of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority having not accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer proceeded further to impose punishment on the respondent- workman. 7. In such cases, where the Disciplinary Authority does not accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the onus is on the Management to prove its case for imposition of the punishment against the workman and so also, with regard to punishment being commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct. This Court is not inclined to go into detail and analyse the facts, which is already on record, as the same having been considered by the tribunal in detail. 8. What requires to be seen here by this Court is whether there is any perversity or illegality committed by the tribunal in not appreciating the materials placed on record and whether the tribunal has committed any error in passing award. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 9. Having gone through the entire materials placed on record, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned finding recorded by the tribunal, so also, the award as there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the tribunal. It is to be seen that despite the Bus fallen into a ditch, on the basis of the Corporation, if the driver was responsible for negligence then they ought to have placed sufficient material to substantiate the same, which is not done here. Absolutely, there is no piece of evidence regarding spot inspection or Surveyor's report. Hence, there is no cogent material against the workman. 10. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Petition is dismissed; ii) The impugned award dated 05.08.2021 passed in I.D.No.254/2011 by the Industrial Tribunal is sustained; - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024 iii) The respondent-workman shall be entitled to the entire benefits and the same shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18