LI Network
Published on: October 12, 2023 at 17:10 IST
The Karnataka High Court confirmed that an Industrial Tribunal does not have the authority to modify a minor penalty, such as a reduction of basic pay, imposed on a bus conductor found to be intoxicated and misbehaving with passengers.
Justice Jyoti Mulimani, presiding as a single judge, granted the petition filed by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMCT), setting aside the Tribunal’s order and upholding the penalty imposed by the Corporation on H.B. Siddarajaiah.
The Corporation had initiated action based on complaints from passengers who reported that the bus conductor, on June 11, 2006, had consumed alcohol and was behaving improperly towards passengers on the bus. Following this complaint, Siddarajaiah underwent a medical examination, which confirmed his alcohol consumption.
The Depot Manager submitted a report on the incident, leading to the issuance of Articles of Charge against the conductor. However, Siddarajaiah chose not to respond to these charges. The disciplinary authority then appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an investigation into the allegations against the conductor.
After a thorough inquiry, the inquiry officer found Siddarajaiah guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority accepted these findings and imposed a penalty on the conductor.
Dissatisfied with the penalty, Siddarajaiah raised a dispute, which was referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that the Corporation’s internal inquiry was conducted fairly and appropriately but opted to modify the penalty.
Upon reviewing the records, the High Court recognized that a bus conductor is a public transport employee with the responsibility of ensuring the safe and efficient operation of bus services. Their duties include collecting fares, issuing tickets, assisting passengers, maintaining order on the bus, and reporting irregularities to supervisors.
The Court emphasized that a bus conductor should be dependable, friendly, helpful, and safety-conscious and should exhibit excellent communication skills and trustworthiness.
In this specific case, the Court noted that the conductor’s behavior was far from what was expected. He was intoxicated and misbehaved with passengers while on duty. The charges against him were serious, as he made the travel experience a nightmare for passengers.
The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in modifying the minor penalty and exceeded its jurisdiction, as Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to minor penalties. Even though the Tribunal confirmed the misconduct, it should not have modified the minor penalty.
The managerial decision to impose a minor penalty is final and cannot be altered using the authority provided under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
As a result, the Court allowed the petition, confirming the penalty imposed on the bus conductor.
