Judgment:
ORDER
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 31-12-2007 in Reference No. 74 of 2006 of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore Annexure-G, allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent-driver by setting aside the order dated 30-9-1991 of the Disciplinary Authority, imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and directing payment of arrears, has presented this petition.
2. Facts not in dispute are that the respondent, was driving the bus bearing Registration No. CAF.8917 on Route No. 10/11 from Chikmagalur to Mysore, on 24-5-1991, which when intercepted by the checking squad, it was alleged that the respondent was carrying unauthorisedly, three ticketless passengers in the closed driver's cabin from Hagare to Hassan (Stage No. 25/24 to 21), after collecting the fare of Rs. 4.25/- from each, as disclosed in their statements recorded in the presence of the driver who was made to pay the said fares to the conductor, against obtaining unpunched tickets. The checking staff issued an offence memo detailing the irregularities observed and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority being of the opinion that there were grounds to enquire into the truth of the imputation of misconduct, issued an Articles of charge dated 19-7-1991 setting out the material allegations followed by an order dated 30-9-1991 rejecting the explanation of the respondent-driver, as not convincing and after holding the charge proved, imposed the punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner by one incremental stage with cumulative effect. The conciliation proceeding instituted by the Union of which the workman was a member having failed, the State Government, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by order dated 20-4-2006, referred the industrial dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore, which was registered as Reference No. 74 of 2006. The respondent entered appearance, lodged a claim statement, inter alia contending that the Secretary of the Union had received all the papers relating to the imposition of the punishment on the assurance that discussion with the management would lead to favourable orders and when no such order came into existence, a conciliation was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and therefore, there is no delay in raising the dispute. In addition, it was contended that the material allegation of irregularities was false, fabricated and fictitious and that the workman had submitted a reply to the Articles of charge denying the charges. That claim was resisted by a counter-statement dated 12-11-2007 of the respondent inter alia contending that the reference of the industrial dispute after 15 long years, without showing sufficient cause was highly belated and suffered from delay and latches, while seeking to support the order impugned, therein, as being well-merited, rally justified and not calling for interference. In addition, stated that the documents pertaining to the case were not available as the case was very old and the extract of the Master Control Register disclosed the nature of offence and the names of the checking officials as well as the punishment imposed. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner examined one Shivalingappa, the Supervisor in the default Section as M.W. 1 who was cross-examined and thereafter the respondent was examined as W.W. 1 whence he produced four documents marked as Exhibits W. 1 to W. 4. The Industrial Tribunal, in the premise of the pleadings of parties, having considered the material on record including the evidence both oral and documentary, held that the charges were not proved and by the award impugned, set aside the punishment and directed payment of arrears.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions:
(i) Sufficient cause was not shown for the inordinate delay of 15 years in raising the dispute and therefore, the reference by the State Government was in respect of a stale claim suffering from delay and latches.
(ii) That the Labour Court fell in error in not recording a finding on the point of delay and latches though raised as a plea in the counter-statement.;
(iii) Had the respondent raised the dispute at the earliest point of time, the petitioner would have had the benefit of establishing the charge for the first time before the Industrial Tribunal by producing relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the charges;
(iv) That the respondent-driver having not pleaded as a fact that an appeal was preferred against the order impugned of the Regional Manager, KSRTC, Mysore Division, could not have led evidence over the said oral assertion;
(v) That the award impugned is arbitrary and illegal.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman seeks to sustain the award impugned as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. In addition, it is contended that the order imposing the punishment is contrary to Regulation 22-B of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, since the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of discretion, did not record reasons to dispense with the enquiry and imposed the punishment. It is next contended that the failure on the part of the Appellate Authority in not disposing off the appeal, Exhibit W. 3 preferred against the order of punishment, the respondent could not have initiated conciliation proceeding's at the earliest point of time. Lastly it is contended that three students with passes, were accommodated in the driver's cabin, to travel from Hagare to Hassan on humanitarian ground, as the bus was full of passengers.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned with reference to the material on record, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the delay of 15 years in raising the dispute and referring the same for adjudication, was not explained satisfactorily. In the claim statement filed by the respondent, except for stating that the papers were handed over to the Secretary of the Union who assured that the matter would be taken up with the management for discussion, in a bilateral forum, and that the Union was assured by the management that orders would be passed on a reconsideration, and hence the Union was awaiting a favourable order and further as nothing happened, the dispute was raised, is but a bald assertion devoid of material particulars and dates. The order imposing punishment Exhibit W. 4 is dated 30-9-1991 while the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication, to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government is dated 20-4-2006. This inordinate delay cannot but be said to be fatal to the entire proceedings, more so in the absence of the satisfactory explanation. The evidence of W.W. 1 is but a self-interested testimony, not corroborated by the evidence of the office-bearers of the Union which espoused the cause of the respondent. In the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the delay was due to the action of the petitioner-management in not reconsidering the claim put forth by the Union of which the respondent was a member, it cannot but be said that the dispute suffers from delay and latches and that the respondent-driver was not responsible for the same.
6. There is also force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, had the dispute been raised at the earliest point of time, the petitioner-Corporation would have had the benefit of adducing evidence and producing the records to substantiate the material allegations of misconduct and to prove the same. In that view of the matter, the petitioner lost an opportunity to place before the Industrial Tribunal relevant records to prove the allegations, only on account of the delay in raising the dispute.
7. The contention that the respondent-driver had filed an appeal against the order of punishment, is supported by Exhibit W. 3 representation dated 26-11-1991. In the absence of an acknowledgement for having filed the appeal, it is too far-fetched for the respondent-driver to contend that an appeal was in fact filed on 26-11-1991 and acknowledged by the Regional Manager, KSRTC, Mysore Region calling in question the order imposing the punishment. This contention of the respondent that the appeal was pending consideration and therefore there was a delay in raising the industrial dispute, cannot but be repelled.
8. It is no doubt true that the order impugned does not disclose reasons to dispense with the enquiry as required by Regulation 22-B of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971. The initiation of conciliation proceedings after the unexplained delay of 15 years and the reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the proceedings stand vitiated and hence even assuming that the order imposing punishment is in violation of Regulation 22-B, did not call for interference . as delay defeats equity and on that score alone, the respondent-driver was not entitled to any relief at the hands of the Industrial Tribunal.
9. The Industrial Tribunal, as is obvious from the award impugned, having adverted to the contention of the petitioner over the delay and latches, fell in error in surmising and making a guesswork over the cause for the delay. It is elsewhere said that essentials may be inferred when from the facts proved, justify the inference. The Labour Court ought not to have surmised, conjecture, or guessed but had to draw inference from proved facts so long as they are legitimate inference. Having regard to the patent mistakes committed by the Industrial Tribunal and a total misdirection and misconception on vital and relevant facts, necessities interference with the award impugned.
10. On an examination of the contentions advanced by the respondent-workman before the Industrial Tribunal, I find the whole edifice of his case to be built upon non-existent foundation and all arguments to stem from fallacious assumptions. The respondent-workman, without placing relevant material before the Industrial Tribunal which might throw light upon the matter in question, sought to obtain a decision in the absence of material and information which a properly informed decision requires. In short, the respondent-driver obtained a decision on improper knowledge.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The award dated 31-2-2007 in Reference No. 74 of 2006 is quashed. The reference by the State Government stands rejected.