Misconduct findings are perverse when unchallenged evidence contradicts the charge.

The respondent, a KSRTC conductor, was charged with collecting fares from nine passengers travelling from Kodihalli to Bijjahalli without issuing tickets.

Following a departmental enquiry, KSRTC imposed a reduction of basic pay by four annual incremental stages with cumulative effect and treated the suspension period as not being on duty.

The respondent appealed and, while that appeal remained undecided, sought a reference on 2 December 2016.

The competent authority referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, which allowed the reference by award dated 16 March 2020.

KSRTC challenged the award, relying on delay, evidence said to establish the misconduct, and the respondent’s prior misconduct record.

1. Whether the respondent’s delay in seeking a reference was sufficiently explained and the Tribunal was justified in condoning it

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that the misconduct charge was not established on the evidence and in allowing the reference

3. Whether the Tribunal’s award disclosed an error or illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which interference with an Industrial Tribunal’s award is warranted where the award suffers from an error or illegality.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.

It assesses whether the Tribunal’s treatment of the evidence and its decision to condone the delay were supported by the record.

The Court accepted that the respondent had appealed the punishment and sought a reference while that appeal remained undecided; in those circumstances, it held that the delay was satisfactorily explained and that the Tribunal had rightly condoned it.

On the charge, the passenger and driver testified that only one passenger was on the bus and that a ticket had been issued.

The Court noted that KSRTC’s cross-examination did not meaningfully challenge that account, the seized cash bag contained no excess cash, and KSRTC had examined only the checking inspector, with limited supporting documentary evidence.

It therefore held that the enquiry officer’s finding that the charge was proved was perverse and contrary to the evidence, and that the Tribunal had rightly allowed the reference.

It held that the award disclosed no error or illegality warranting writ interference and dismissed the petition.