KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus B.S. HULLIKATTI

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 22-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD 
TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
B.S. HULLIKA TTI 
JANUARY 22, 2001 
[B.N. I}IRPAL AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Labour Law 
A 
B 
State Road Transport Corporation-Bus Conductor-Responsibility of- C 
Held he acts in fiduciary capacity-Must collect correct/are and deposit it-
Knowingly not collecting the fare or short-charging is misconduct. 
Road Transport Corporation-Bus Conductor-Short-charging-Issuing 
tickets of less denomination than fare charged-Domestic enquiry-
Dismissal-Dismissa/ order set aside-Labour Court and High Court directed D 
reinstatement with full back wages-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held 
Conductor had earlier been found guilty as many as 36 times-The principle 
a/res ipsa loquitur, namely, thefaczs speak/or themselves, is clearly applicable 
in the instant case-Act of Conductor was either dishonest or was so grossly 
negligent-He was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action E 
or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant-
Corporation-Order of dismissal should not have been set aside-However 
in view of the fact that in the meantime Conductor had superannuated his· 
reinstatement order not set aside. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 784 of2001. F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.10.99 of the Kamataka High Court 
in W.A. No. 4251 of 1998. 
R.S. Hegde and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellant. 
S. Ravindra Bhat, Naveen R Nath, Ms. Lali Mohini Bhat and Shiv Kumar 
Suri for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Special Leave granted. 
487 
G 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORT.~ 
, .. 
-
(2001) l S.C.R. 
·A. 
In the instant case, the respondent was a Bus Conductor working with 
B 
the appellant-Corporation. A domestic inquiry was held in which it was 
alleged that he had collected at a· particular trip of the bus Rs. 2.25 from each 
of the 35 passengers but had issued tickets of the denomi~ation of Rs. 1.75 
only. 
· 
--- . 
As a result of the domestic inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from 
service. Reference was made to the Labour Court which came to the conclusion 
that the domestic inquiry was not fair or proper. Opportunity was given to 
the appellant to produce evidence which it did. 
· 
After recording the evidence, the Labour Court by the impugned award 
C came to the conclusion that the allegation that the Conductor had issued 
tickets of Rs: 1.75 instead of Rs. 2.25 was proved but it had not been proved 
that he had collected the amount of Rs. 2.25 from the passengers. The Labour 
Court set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement with 
·full back wages. On a writ petition being filed by the appellant-Corporation, 
D the Single J~dge dismissed the same after noting that the Labour Court had· 
awarded 50 percent of the back wages with reinstatement Realising that this 
. was a mistake, the Single Judge rectified the same and ordered reinstatement 
with full back· wages. The letters patent appeal w£s dismissed. Hence,. this · 
appeal by special leave. 
E 
On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is 
evident that there was a short-charging of the fare by the respondent from 
as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been. in 
·service as a Conductor. for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he 
did· not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Further-
F more, the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account 
the fact that the respondent had been found guilty for as many as 36 times 
on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ·ipsa /oquitur, namely, 
the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case. 
Charging 50 paise per ticket less from as many as 35 passengers could only 
be to get financial benefit by the Conductor. This act was either dishonest 
G or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained 
3s a Conductor because such action or· inaction of his is bound to result in 
· financial .loss to the appellant-Corporation. 
It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on 
checking it is fund that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to 
H a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued 
.... 
·~ 
..+ . 
. .. 
·°1 
K.S.R.T.C v: B.S. HULLIKATTI 
489 
tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the ,correct fare to be A 
charged. It is the responsibilit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.