THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus K. MARUTI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 17-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE NORTH EAST KARNATAKA 
B 
c 
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
. v. 
K. MARUTI 
NOVEMBER 17, 2006 
[DK AR; LAKSHMANAN AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1947: 
Misconduct- 'Badli' condu,tor-Found collecting money from 
passengers and not issuing tickets to them-Removal of name from list of 
'Badli' Conductors-Labour Court holding the disciplinary .inqui1y to be 
D fair and proper but directing his reinstatement on the list of 'badli' 
conductors-High Court affirming the order-Held, delinquent being a 'badli' 
conductor, was not entitled to reinstatement-A conductor holds the post of 
trust-A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of 
removal from service-Orders of High Court <;1nd Labour Court set aside-
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation C and D Regulations, I 9 7 I. 
E 
Respondent was employed a~ a 'badli' conductor in the appellant-
Corporation. During the said employment he had been punished by imposing 
fine for misconduct. Again, on a particular date when his bus was checked 
by the checking squa~, it was found, inter a/ia, that he failed to issue tickets 
to some passengers despite collection of money while to some others he neither 
F issued tickets nor collected the requisite fare. An inquiry was held and 
ultimately his name was removed from the list of 'badli' conductors. The 
respondent approached the Labour Court which passed an order holding that 
the inquiry held was fair and proper and posted the matter for recording the 
evidence. However, ultimately the Labour Copurt set aside the termination 
G order and directed the appellant-Management to reinstate the respondent on 
the list of 'badli' conductors, but without back wages. 
H 
The Management having unsuccessfully challenged the order of Labour 
Court in writ petition before Single Judge and in consequent writ appeal 
150 
' 
""' 
~· 
MANAGING DIRECTOR. THE NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. "· K. MARUTI 
151 
before Division Bench of the High_ Court, filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The order passed by the High Court is erroneous on the 
face of the record. The High Court, ought to have seen that the misconduct 
A 
was duly established in the inquiry and despite it, the Labour Court had B 
persuaded itself to reinstate the delinquent in service. The High Court was 
not justified in altering the quantum of punishment when the enquiry was 
held to be fair and proper, charge was proved and no evidence was led before 
the Labour Court. It also failed to note the order removing the name of the 
respondent from the list of'badli' conductors, and the fact that the punishment 
imposed on the delinquent official was not shockingly disproportionate to the C 
gravit'J of the misconduct proved against him coupled with his history and he 
being a 'badli' conductor. The Division Bench also erred in rejecting the 
plea of the Management_ that the Labour Court was not justified in ordering 
reinstatement of the respondent as regular employee on the ground that such 
a plea was not raised before the Single Judge when as a matter of fact the D 
plea had been taken both before the Labour Court and the Single Judge of 
the High Court. [153-G-H; 154-A-C) 
1.2. In the instant case, the position held by the employee (conductor) is 
one of faith and trust. A conductor holds the post of trust. A person guilty 
of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. E 
The respondent's conduct in not collecting the requisite fare at the designated 
place from persons who had travelled was in violation of various regulations 
contained in the provisions of the Corporation C & D Regulations, 1971. The 
orders passed by the High Court and the Labour Court are also set aside. 
[155-B, E] F 
Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, [2002) 10 SCC 330; 
Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti, [2001) 2 SCC 574; Divisional Controller, 
N.E.K.R.T.C v. H. Amaresh, [2006) 6 SCC 187; V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC & 
Ors., [2005) 7 SCC 338; Madhur Coats Ltd v. Madhan Kumar & Ors., (2000) 
85 FLR 933 and Madras; and Management of T.l. Diamond Chain Ltd. v. P.L. G 
Ramanathan & Anr., (2005) (107) FLR 714, relied on. 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5094 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25-2-2005 of the High Court of 
Kamataka at Bangalore in W.A. No.1565/2004(L-KSRTC). 
H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.