After finding 118 misconduct cases, HC upholds conductor's dismissal from service

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the dismissal from service of a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus conductor who was dismissed from service after having been involved in 118 cases of misconduct earlier.

Overturning the order of a Labour Court that had reinstated him, the HC in its recent judgement said, “It is pivotal to note that the Labour Court ought to have accepted the case ought to have accepted the case After finding 118 misconduct cases, HC upholds conductor's dismissal from service of the Corporation that the workman was punished on 118 occasions in the past. The workman failed to improve his conduct despite providing sufficient opportunity. The Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that the workman was a habitual offender. The findings of the Labour Court that the order of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate is also unsustainable in law.” Naveenkumar MR, a driver cum conductor in KSRTC was plying the bus between Gaddige to Mysuru on April 13, 2015 when it was checked by the Corporation authorities.

It was found that he had not issued tickets to a group of nine passengers failing to collect Rs.15 each from them for a total of Rs.135. A report was submitted against his misconduct.

After a domestic inquiry, the charges were proved and after show cause notice the disciplinary authority gave him opportunity to present his case.

After considering that he was involved in 118 cases of misconduct earlier, the punishment of dismissal from service was served on him on July 8, 2015. Naveenkumar ap - proached the Labour Court against this dismissal.

The Labour Court on February 20, 2017 set aside the order of punishment and reinstated him. This was challenged by the KSRTC in the HC and the petition was heard by Justice Jyoti Mulimani.

The HC in its judgement noted that “The Labour Court has failed to notice that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to case.

It is perhaps well to observe that each case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the worker.”

The HC said that the past conduct of the workman was also to be taken into account.

“The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while evaluating the misconduct committed by him and this is contrary to the records. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while passing the order of dismissal,” it said.

The HC noted that even after this current incident, there were more charges against the workman.

“Furthermore, even after the reinstatement, the respondent is involved in almost eighteen cases. The past and present misconduct of the respondent would depict that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently and carefully. The Labour Court has overlooked the misconduct and in particular the involvement of the respondent in almost one hundred and eighteen cases and simply proceeded to set-aside the order dismissal. This is unsustainable in law,” the HC said, upholding the workman's dismissal.