Facts
The workman, a KSRTC conductor, was charged with failing to issue tickets to two passengers after collecting the fare.
Source reference: p. 2Following a domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority permanently reduced his basic pay by two annual incremental stages and treated his suspension period as not being on duty.
Source reference: pp. 5–6The workman claimed to have appealed, but produced no proof of the appeal. He sought a reference in 2011, eight years after the penalty order of 20 September 2003.
Source reference: pp. 3, 6–7The Tribunal allowed the reference by an award dated 25 October 2019. KSRTC challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the reference despite the workman’s unexplained eight-year delay in challenging the penalty order
Source reference: pp. 4, 6–7Whether the Tribunal’s finding in the workman’s favour was sustainable in light of the evidence that two passengers were travelling without tickets
Source reference: pp. 4–5, 7–8Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to review the Tribunal’s award.
Source reference: p. 2It applied the principles that an unexplained delay in seeking a reference may warrant rejection of the claim, and that a Tribunal’s finding unsupported by the record or contrary to the evidence may be set aside as perverse.
Source reference: pp. 7–8The judgment cites no specific statute governing the reference or precedents.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The workman did not establish that he had filed an appeal or explain the eight-year interval before seeking a reference; the Tribunal had condoned the delay without giving reasons.
Source reference: p. 7On the merits, the passengers were found without tickets, had paid a penalty, and had given statements confirming that they were travelling ticketless. The workman offered no material to disprove this evidence; his account that the passengers had boarded shortly before the stop to reserve seats was unsupported.
Source reference: pp. 7–8The Court therefore held that the Tribunal had accepted that explanation without supporting material, rendering its finding perverse and contrary to the record.
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal’s award dated 25 October 2019 in I.D. No. 260/2011.
Original Court PDF
THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONvsSRI. R. NAGARAJU
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
