Employment LawHon’ble Karnataka High Court Upholds KSRTC Conductor’s Dismissal: Labour Court’s Reinstatement Order Quashed Due to Repeated Misconduct

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in The Divisional Controller, KSRTC AND N N Mahadeva [Judgement dated on May,27,2024 in WRIT PETITION NO. 55722 OF 2017 has set aside an order passed by the Ld. Labour Court directing the reinstatement of a conductor working with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “KSRTC”), who was charged and dismissed for non-issuing of tickets to passengers travelling on the bus.

FACTS

The Divisional Controller, KSRTC,( hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) filed this writ petition in order to challenge the  Award passed by the Ld. Labour Court. N N Mahadeva ( hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent” ).

The respondent was employed by the Corporation’s institution as a Conductor. On January 27, 2013, when he was in charge of the bus that belonged to The Corporation, registered under the number KA-09/F-1427, was operating from Gonikoppa to B.Shettageri on route No. 85AB. The respondent neglected to issue tickets to three passengers who were travelling from Gonikoppa to B.Shettageri and was not able to collect the fare of Rs. 17/- (Rupees Seventeen only) each, for a total of Rs. 51/- (Rupees Fifty One only).

The bus was checked at Kunda and it was discovered that 31 passengers were travelling in it. The Corporation received a detailed report from the Checking Officials. It is said that articles of charge were given to the respondent based on the report of the Checking Officials. In his response, he refuted the accusations made against him.

An inquiry officer was assigned by the disciplinary authority. After conducting a thorough investigation, the inquiry officer presented his findings, concluding that the allegations are true. The conclusions of the inquiry officer, the prior history of 122 instances, and the second show cause notice were sent to the defendant. He turned in his response to the second notice of show cause. On July 21, 2015, the disciplinary authority issued an order of dismissal based on the materials in the file.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. whether the Labour Court had justified reason to change the penalty given ?
2. Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct ?
3. Whether the Labour Court properly exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Contentions of the Petitioner

1. The Petitioner contended that the respondent, who was working as a conductor, failed to issue tickets and collect fares from three passengers on a bus route from Gonikoppa to B. Shettageri. This misconduct led to a disciplinary inquiry and subsequent dismissal of the respondent from service.
2. The Petitioner argued that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted fairly and the inquiry officer had rightly found the charges of misconduct to be proved. Based on this, the disciplinary authority dismissed the respondent from service, taking into consideration his past history of 122 cases of misconduct.
3. The Petitioner challenged the Ld. Labour Court’s decision to modify the order of dismissal. The Ld. Labour Court had directed KSRTC to reinstate the respondent with a penalty of withholding two increments, which Petitioner argued was inappropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the respondent’s history of repeated offenses.
4. The Petitioner contended that the Ld. Labour Court had overstepped by reducing the punishment despite upholding the findings of the inquiry officer. The Petitioner argued that such reduction was legally unsustainable, particularly given the respondent’s repeated misconduct.

Contentions of the Respondent

1. The Respondent denied the charges against him, arguing that he was unable to issue tickets to the passengers because they were quarrelling and intoxicated. At that moment, the checking squad arrived and took his electronic ticketing machine, preventing him from completing his duties.
2. The Respondent claimed that the disciplinary action taken by Petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He argued that the dismissal was not justified for an offense involving a small sum of money (Rs. 51).
3. The Respondent had successfully argued before the Ld. Labour Court that the dismissal was disproportionate, leading to the modification of the punishment. The Ld. Labour Court had reinstated him with a penalty of withholding two increments, a decision he likely supported.

DECISION AND FINDINGS

The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition filed by KSRTC and quashed the Ld. Labour Court’s award dated June 7, 2017. The Ld. Labour Court had earlier directed the reinstatement of the respondent, Sri N.N. Mahadeva, along with a penalty of withholding two increments. However, the Hon’ble High Court set aside this order and confirmed KSRTC’s dismissal order dated July 21, 2015. The interim order of reinstatement passed by the Hon’ble High Court earlier was discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly. The writ of certiorari was issued, effectively reversing the Ld. Labour Court’s modification of the punishment.

The Hon’ble High Court found that the respondent’s failure to issue tickets and collect fares from three passengers was a valid instance of misconduct. The Court held that the Ld. Labour Court erred in reducing the punishment after accepting the inquiry officer’s findings. The misconduct, combined with the respondent’s history of 122 previous infractions, warranted the dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority, which the Court deemed proportionate to the offense. The Ld. Labour Court’s decision to modify the punishment was deemed legally unsustainable.

The Court emphasized the importance of considering the past conduct of an employee when deciding disciplinary actions. The KSRTC had appropriately considered the respondent’s prior misconduct when imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Hon’ble High Court criticized the Ld. Labour Court for disregarding this past record and improperly exercising discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Additionally, the High Court noted that after his interim reinstatement, the respondent had committed approximately ten more instances of misconduct. This further demonstrated that the respondent was not diligent in performing his duties and reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the dismissal was justified.

AMLEGALS REMARKS

The case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. N N Mahadeva underscores the crucial balance between enforcing employee discipline and protecting workers’ rights. The Karnataka High Court’s ruling reinforces the authority of employers to enact disciplinary measures based on an employee’s prior conduct, while simultaneously raising questions about the degree of reliance on past misconduct in making termination decisions. This analysis explores the implications of the Court’s judgment and its adherence to legal norms.

The ruling is likely to serve as a precedent in similar situations where employee misconduct and prior conduct are in question. It signals to both employers and employees that while past conduct is relevant, there are limits to how it should be factored into disciplinary decisions. The Court’s verdict, though legalistically sound, opens avenues for further exploration into the role of past conduct in such cases. The judgment reaffirms the necessity for public sector employers to follow established disciplinary protocols rigorously. It demonstrates that repeated non-compliance with job responsibilities can lead to serious consequences, underscoring the importance of diligence and integrity in public service.

– Team AMLEGALS