12.11 The Road Transport Corporation, in order to
escape its liability in the M.A.C.T. matter, has
taken up the contention that the driver was
driving in a proper manner and rider of the two
wheeler was driving in a rash and negligent but
on the other hand in the disciplinary
proceedings it is contended that its own driver
was rash and negligent. It is required for any
litigant more so an instrumentality of the state
to adhere to one set of facts and not change
the set of facts depending on its convenience
and/or requirements.
12.12 Despite the existence of the fax dated
26.07.2015, of the Divisional Cum Controller to
the Managing Director, and the report of the
Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer
dated 05.08.2016, a written statement had
been filed absolving the respondent-driver of
any liability. Once the driver stood absolved by
the said written statement, it is impermissible
for the Road Transport Corporation to initiate
the disciplinary enquiry.
12.13 It was for the respondent, Road Transport
Corporation to have come clean and clearly and
categorically stated in M.V.C.Nos.3282 &
3283/2015 that it was the driver's fault for
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and offered to make payment of the
compensation due in the said proceedings. It is
only in order to try and escape the payment of
compensation that a false stand has been taken
by the Road Transport Corporation, which is
established to be false by the contents of the
present writ petition as also by the M.A.C.T. in
its order dated 08.09.2016 in the aforesaid
M.V.Cs.
12.14 It is also relevant to take note that not only was
the precious time of the M.A.C.T. wasted by
taking the said false defence offered by the
Road Transport Corporation, but more
importantly, the victim of the road accident was
denied, immediate relief, and succour by way of
payment of compensation. The said payment
being delayed until the finding being rendered
by the M.A.C.T. after evidence being led. These
kind of actions on part of the Road Transport
Corporation are required to be deprecated and
are deprecated.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
WRIT PETITION NO. 24370 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION Vs SRI GANGANNA
BEFORE
MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
1. The petitioner-Road Transport Corporation, is before
this Court seeking the following reliefs:
a. A writ of certiorari or order or direction quashing
the impugned award dated 12.10.2018 passed by
the Principal District Judge, at Tumkur in
Application No.10(4)(A) No.1/2017 produced at
Annexure-M.
b. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or
direction as deemed fit, under the facts and
circumstances of the above case, in the interest
of justice and equity.
2. The respondent-workman was appointed as a driver
with effect from 04.07.2020. On 26.07.2015, while
discharging his duty in a bus bearing registration
No.KA-06-F-952 plying in route No.23/24 i.e.,
Bengaluru to Hosadurga at 11.45 hours near
Nelamangala on Joss Toll of National Highway-4 after
crossing white line of divider due to rash, high speed
and negligent driving of the respondent-workman,
the driver dashed against a two-wheeler which came
from the opposite direction due to which the two-
wheeler rider expired at the spot and pillion-rider
expired on the way to the hospital.
3. It is alleged that this accident was caused due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver-workman.
The Divisional Controller submitted an accident
report stating specifically that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
workman-driver. On the basis of the said report of
the Divisional Controller, the Disciplinary Authority,
on 29.07.2015, suspended the respondent-workman.
4. On 05.08.2015, the Deputy Chief Security and
Vigilance Officer, K.S.R.T.C, Bengaluru, wrote a letter
to the Chief Security and Vigilance Officer,
K.S.R.T.C., Bengaluru, intimating about the accident
due to negligent driving. On the basis of the said
report article of charges was issued on 18.08.2015
towards which a reply was submitted by the
workman, which was not accepted.
5. The Enquiry Officer being appointed submitted a
report stating that the charges had been proved, and
the respondent-workman was called upon to give a
reply to the enquiry report, a reply when given was
not accepted, and the respondent-workman was
dismissed from service on 02.08.2016.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondentworkman
filed a Claim Statement under Section
10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before
the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in
Application No.10(4) A No.1/2017. The said Principal
District Judge held the enquiry to be fair and proper.
But however, allowed the claim petition of the
workman and set aside the dismissal order directing
the reinstatement of the respondent-workman into
service with continuity of service and without back
wages from the date of dismissal, but withholding
three increments. It is aggrieved by the same that
the petitioner-Corporation is before this Court.
7. Sri. R.B.Annappanavar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner would submit that:
7.1 There is serious delinquency on the part of the
workman-driver inasmuch as an accident has
been caused due to the rash and negligent
driving of the said driver, which has resulted in
two deaths, and as such, the Tribunal ought to
have upheld the order of dismissal instead of
reinstating the workman.
7.2 The Labour Court has also further erred in
taking into account certain lower punishments
awarded to certain other workmen to support
its order of reduction of punishment, which
ought not to have been done.
8. Per contra, Sri. L.Shekar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-workman, would submit that the
Labour Court has rightly taken into consideration the
various factors and had reduced the punishment,
which cannot be found fault with. The respondentworkman
has been discriminated against vis-a-viz
other workmen who were awarded a lesser
punishment. The Road Transport Corporation has in
the Motor Accident claim filed has supported the
workman and as such disciplinary proceedings could
not have been initiated. Therefore, this Court ought
not to interfere in the matter and the petition above
filed would have to be dismissed.
9. When the said arguments were advanced, this Court
called upon Sri.R.B.Annappanavar to enquire into as
to whether any motor vehicle accident Claim Petition
had been filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, and
what was the defence if any, which had been taken
by the Road Transport Corporation.
10. Today, Sri. R.B. Annappanavar, produces the
judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
M.V.C.Nos.3282 and 3283/2015 dated 08.09.2016.
By relying upon the same, he submits that the
Tribunal has come to a categorical conclusion that
the respondent-workman has driven the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner. Therefore, this Court
ought to take the same into consideration and set
aside the order of the Labour Court and confirm the
order of dismissal.
11. Heard Sri. Annappanavar R.B., learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. L. Shekar, learned counsel for
the respondent and perused papers.
12. The points that would arise for determination of this
Court are:
1. Whether the Road Transport Corporation
can take a different stand than that taken
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(M.A.C.T.), while dealing with the
disciplinary proceedings?
2. Whether the principle of estoppel would
apply to the Road Transport Corporation?
3. Whether the order passed by the Labour
Court suffers from any legal infirmity
requiring interference?
4. What order?
13. I answer the above points as under:
14. Answer to point Nos.1 and 2: Whether the Road
Transport Corporation can take a different
stand than that taken before the M.A.C.T., while
dealing with the disciplinary proceedings? and
Whether the principle of estoppel would apply
to the Road Transport Corporation?
12.1 There is no dispute about the occurrence of the
accident on 26.07.2015 and the involvement of
the vehicle, which was driven by the
respondent-workman. There is also no dispute
about the fact that two persons died due to the
said accident, who was the rider and the pillion
rider of the motorcycle against which the said
bus of the Road Transport Corporation dashed
against.
12.2 The contention of Sri. R.B.Annappanavar,
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
Divisional Controller of concerned divisions had
submitted an accident report stating that the
respondent-workman was riding the same in a
rash and negligent manner. A fax message had
been sent by the Divisional Controller to the
Managing Director, and a report from the
Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer,
K.S.R.T.C., Bengaluru, also indicated that the
said driver was riding in a rash and negligent
manner, and it is on that basis that the article
of charges were issued.
12.3 In M.V.C.Nos.3282 and 3283/2015, the
M.A.C.T. at Bengaluru (SSCH-15) has dealt with
the contents of the written statement in para '6'
which reads as under:
"6. In the written statement of respondent: he
admits that he has the owner of JA-06/F-952 and
denied all other allegations made in the petition
and contended that, on that day the driver of said
bus driven slowly and carefully on the left side of
road, at about 11.30 a.m. when the said bus
reached near the JOSS Toll which is an one way
road in which a rider of motor cycle bearing Regn.
No.KA-41/U-1520 came from the opposite
direction with a pillion rider in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against to the front
right side of the said bus, further contended that,
the rider of motor cycle came in a wrong
direction, to avoid direct collusion, the driver of
the bus all of a sudden slowly and cautiously
applied brake and he was already in the extreme
left side of the road. As such, the rider of the
Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-41/U-1520 was
wholly and solely responsible for the alleged
accident. Hence, respondent prays to dismiss the
petition."
12.4 A perusal of the same would indicate that in the
written statement which has been filed in the
said M.V.C.Nos.3282 and 3283/2015, the Road
Transport Corporation has certified the driving
of the respondent-workman and has
categorically stated that the bus was being
driven slowly and carefully on the left side of
the road and it is further alleged that the rider
of the motor vehicle came from the opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the front side of the bus.
12.5 It is further stated that the rider of the
motorcycle came in the wrong direction and to
avoid a direct collision, the driver of the bus
slowly and cautiously applied the brake on the
extreme left side of the road. As such, it was
contended that sole responsibility for the
accident rested with the rider of the motorcycle,
and on that basis, it was contended that the
Road Transport Corporation ought not to be
made responsible for the compensation which
has been sought for in the M.V.C. case.
12.6 From the above, it is clear that in the written
statement filed, the Road Transport Corporation
has categorically exonerated the respondentworkman
from any wrongdoing and has
certified that the respondent-workman has
driven the vehicle in a proper and required
manner.
12.7 Shockingly, it is further averred and contended
that it is the rider of the motorcycle who has
driven in a rash and negligent manner. Though
the Tribunal, after considering all the evidence,
has come to the conclusion that the defence
that has been taken by the Road Transport
Corporation has not been established by any
documentary or ocular evidence and taking into
consideration the spot of the accident, has
come to the conclusion that the driver of the
bus of the Road Transport Corporation was
driving the said bus on the wrong side of the
road. The fact, however, remains that what we
are concerned with in the present matter is the
disciplinary enquiry which has been initiated by
the Road Transport Corporation.
12.8 The Road Transport Corporation, being a
Government company and instrumentality of
the state, the Road Transport Corporation as
also its officers, are required to act in a proper
manner.
12.9 In the present petition, it is categorically
averred that the Divisional Controller of K.B.S.
Division was of the opinion that the bus was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner,
which was informed by way of a fax message
dated 26.07.2015 to the Managing Director. In
furtherance thereof the Road Transport
Corporation has suspended the respondentworkman
on 29.07.2015. The Deputy Chief
Secretary and Vigilance Officer, has submitted a
report on 05.08.2015.
12.10 If that be so, it remains to be explained by the
concerned as to how the defence in
M.V.C.Nos.3282 and 3283/2015 was taken that
the driver was driving in a proper manner and
that it is the two wheeler rider who was driving
in a rash and negligent manner.
12.11 The Road Transport Corporation, in order to
escape its liability in the M.A.C.T. matter, has
taken up the contention that the driver was
driving in a proper manner and rider of the two
wheeler was driving in a rash and negligent but
on the other hand in the disciplinary
proceedings it is contended that its own driver
was rash and negligent. It is required for any
litigant more so an instrumentality of the state
to adhere to one set of facts and not change
the set of facts depending on its convenience
and/or requirements.
12.12 Despite the existence of the fax dated
26.07.2015, of the Divisional Cum Controller to
the Managing Director, and the report of the
Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer
dated 05.08.2016, a written statement had
been filed absolving the respondent-driver of
any liability. Once the driver stood absolved by
the said written statement, it is impermissible
for the Road Transport Corporation to initiate
the disciplinary enquiry.
12.13 It was for the respondent, Road Transport
Corporation to have come clean and clearly and
categorically stated in M.V.C.Nos.3282 &
3283/2015 that it was the driver's fault for
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and offered to make payment of the
compensation due in the said proceedings. It is
only in order to try and escape the payment of
compensation that a false stand has been taken
by the Road Transport Corporation, which is
established to be false by the contents of the
present writ petition as also by the M.A.C.T. in
its order dated 08.09.2016 in the aforesaid
M.V.Cs.
12.14 It is also relevant to take note that not only was
the precious time of the M.A.C.T. wasted by
taking the said false defence offered by the
Road Transport Corporation, but more
importantly, the victim of the road accident was
denied, immediate relief, and succour by way of
payment of compensation. The said payment
being delayed until the finding being rendered
by the M.A.C.T. after evidence being led. These
kind of actions on part of the Road Transport
Corporation are required to be deprecated and
are deprecated.
12.15 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to
bring the above facts and observations to the
knowledge of the Managing Director of the
Road Transport Corporation to issue necessary
directions to all the concerned while dealing
with similar matters that no contradictory stand
is taken by any of the disciplinary authorities
and/or the authorities who file written
statement in the M.V.C. proceedings and if any
such event occurs, necessary disciplinary
proceedings to be initiated against such persons
by following the applicable rules. Instructions to
be also issued that a statement to be made in
any written statement filed in a Motor Vehicle
Accident claim petition if any disciplinary
proceedings are initiated or not.
12.16 In view of the above, I answer point Nos.1 and
2 raised by holding that the Road Transport
Corporation cannot take different stands in
different proceedings more so, when they are
diametrically opposite to each other. The stand
having been taken by the Road Transport
Corporation in the M.V.C. proceedings the Road
Transport Corporation is estopped from taking
any stand otherwise.
15. Answer to point No.3: Whether the order
passed by the Labour Court suffers from any
legal infirmity requiring interference?
13.1. In view of my finding in respect of point Nos.1
and 2 above, I am of the considered opinion
that though this matter has not been
considered by the Labour Court, the finding of
the Labour Court is not required to be
interceded with.
16. Answer to point No.4: In view of the all aforesaid
reasons, I pass the following:
::ORDER::
i. The writ petition is dismissed.
ii. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C.) is directed
to institute a proper Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) to deal with similar kind of
matters on the basis of the observations made
herein above and submit the said Standard
Operative Procedure to this Court within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
iii. Though the above petition is dismissed, for
reporting compliance with the above
observations, re-list on 15.11.2022.
iv. All pending interlocutory applications stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment