Partly allowed

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Vijayakumar

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2012WP/40878/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a Labour Court award reinstating an employee following unauthorized absence for one day. The High Court upheld the reinstatement and backwages as just and proper, finding no disproportionality, but quashed the accompanying show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court award was upheld; the Management was directed to settle pending claims within one month; the show cause notice by the Labour Commissioner was quashed.

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

WP No.40878/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.40878 OF 2012 (L-TER)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S BHANDARY POWER LINES PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND WORKS AT PLOT NO.3B, INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANIPAL 576104, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL & ADMINISTRATION)

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT.MANJULA N KULKARNI, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S/O ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, KUNJIBETTU POST, UDUPI-574132

¶14

THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(SRI. B S MURALI FOR C/R1 SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATRI, HCGP FOR R2)

¶17

WP No.40878/2012

¶18

¶19

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the Labour Court, Mangalore pertaining into Ann-B and etc. This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent No.2.

¶22

The petitioner – Management has called in question the award dated 29.2.2012 in ID No.3/2006 on the file of the Labour Court, Mangalore produced at Annexure-B and show cause notice issued by the respondent No.2 dated 22.8.2012 produced at Annexure-E.

¶23

The facts which are not in dispute are that, respondent was dismissed from service w.e.f. 9.9.2005 on the allegation that he had disobeyed the orders of his superiors, has consumed alcohol while on duty, further had remained unauthorisedly absent for two days. In this regard, enquiry was held and order of punishment was passed. As against the order of punishment, petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act

¶24

WP No.40878/2012

¶25

¶26

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in I.D.No.3/2006. The Labour Court, by its award dated 19.7.2010, held that the charge of disobeying the orders of the superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent for a day, is proved.

¶27

This award was called in question by the petitioner in WP No.692/2011. This Court set aside the findings as regard to the charge of disobeying the orders of superiors and confirmed the findings as regard to remaining unatuhorisedly absent for one day. However, remanded the matter with a direction to consider the proportionality of the punishment by exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act. After remand, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award dated 29.2.2012 inter-alia setting aside the order of punishment and directing the petitioner – Management to reinstate the respondent with 50% backwages. It is against the said award, the Management is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent for a day and

¶29

WP No.40878/2012

¶30

¶31

the said finding was confirmed by this Court. Even without due regard to the order passed by this Court, the Labour Court, has held that the charges are not proved. The said finding is contrary to the order of remand passed by this Court.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the standing order and pointed out that, even in case of remaining unauthorisedly absent up to 7 days, the punishment is either warning, censure, fine or suspension for 2 days without wages. In this case, the allegation is that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for a day and that is the finding arrived at by the Labour Court at the earlier appeal. As such, the denial of 50% backwages is more than the reasonable punishment and it is more than what is provided in the standing order, hence, submitted that the award of the Labour Court does not call for interference.

¶33

It is not in dispute that earlier, the Labour Court, by award dated 19.7.2010 had held that the charge of

¶34

WP No.40878/2012

¶35

¶36

disobedience and remaining unauthorisedly absent for a day is proved. However, this Court had set aside the findings as to the disobedience of the orders of superior and had confirmed only the charge of unauthorised absence for one day. Further, this Court had not directed the Labour Court to hold fresh enquiry. It had directed only to consider the proportionality of the punishment. Having regard to the standing order, denial of one increment with 50% backwages now passed by the Labour Court cannot be held to be disproportionate and in terms of the standing order, the punishment awarded by the Labour Court is much more than the reasonable.

¶37

In my opinion, for remaining one day unauthorisedly absent and for which even explanation was given, the punishment imposed by the Labour Court is just and proper and does not call for interference.

¶38

Since it is submitted that the award is complied by reinstating the respondent and it is submitted that if there is anything to be complied, same will also be complied, I find

¶39

WP No.40878/2012

¶40

¶41

that the show cause notice issued by the 2^nd respondent could be quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, petition is partly allowed. Annexure-E – show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 is quashed. However, the Management is directed to settle the claims of the petitioner, if any still pending, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶43

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nalini Shivashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

S Narasimha Murthy Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Sri a T Chandru Vs the Superintending Engineer

M/S Bhandary Power Lines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Prabhu

The Member Secretary Vs Sri. Mallikarjuna Murthy

B N Jagadeesh Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike