H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS,J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 30.04 2009 in reference No. 32/2007 passed by the III Additional labour Court at Bangalore rejecting the claim of Petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER was working as a Conductor in the Respondent the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for shun the Corporation). On 18.03.2002 when the Petitioner was conducting the bus the checking squad of the Respondent Corporation conducted a check and found that 6 tickets of Rs. 2.00 denomination and 2 tickets of Rs. 3.00 denomination with the Petitioner for the purpose of re -issue. Further it was found that there was improper entry in the way bill, and excess cash of Rs. 51.00. For this misconduct, article of charges were issued, enquiry was held and an order of penalty was passed on 08.10.2002 removing the Petitioner from services. Aggrieved by this order of penalty the Petitioner raised a dispute before the labour Court by way of reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). In the claim statement filed by the Petitioner before the labour Court she has not questioned the validity of domestic enquiry. Before the labour Court the Respondent Corporation has not adduced any evidence but produced certain documents. The Petitioner examined herself as W.W.1 and produced 5 documents as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.5. The labour Court on appreciation of the material on record passed the impugned award rejecting the reference. Hence, this writ petition. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
(3.) JR . the enquiry proceedings the Petitioner examined two witnesses in support of her case they are, the driver of the bus and a passenger. Though the labour Court refers to the evidence of these two witnesses failed to appreciate and assess the same in accordance with law. Further it is seen from the record that the Respondent -Corporation for the first time produced a document relating to he past history of the Petitioner and the same was not. marked in the evidence. But the labour Court considered this unmarked document without providing an opportunity to the Petitioner to cross -examine the Respondent witness on this document. Again this approach of the labour Court is perverse and bad in law.;