Allowed

Marappa S/O. Kariyappa, v. the Management of Nwkrtc

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2012WP/60631/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner's claim alleging that the managing authority failed to obtain prior permission from the Labour Court before dismissing him. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; dismissal order set aside; respondent directed to reinstate petitioner in two months with continuity of service but without back wages.

Marappa S/O. Kariyappa, Vs the Management… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶2

Dated this the 21^st day of September, 2012

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶5

Writ Petition 60631 / 2012 ( L )

¶6

Between:

¶7

Marappa S/o Kariyappa, 50 yrs R/o Hallikeri, Harappanahalli Davangere District

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Anant P Savadi, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

Management of NWKRTC By its Divisional Controller Haveri Division, Haveri

¶12

Respondent

¶13

(By Sri Shivakumar S Badawadagi, Adv.)

¶14

The Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the award dated 3.7.2010 in KID 31/2006 by the Prl. Labour Court, Hubli.

¶15

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner was appointed by the respondent as a Conductor during 1988. On the allegation of misconduct i.e., checking was conducted on 28.6.1989, on inquiry and after charge sheet is filed, having found the workman guilty, he was dismissed from service on 6.12.2005.

¶19

In the dispute raised before the Labour Court, Hubli, the inquiry was held to be fair and proper. The Labour Court dismissed the dispute noting that there is past misconduct of 76 cases and in the present case, there is non issuance of tickets to eighteen passengers. Against the said order, petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

¶21

According to the petitioner’s counsel, after holding an inquiry, before the order of dismissal being passed, disciplinary

¶22

¶23

authority ought to have obtained permission of the Labour Court. That has not been done.

¶24

In the case of Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd Vs Ram Gopal Sharma – AIR 2002 SC 643 , for non compliance of S.33(2)(b) of the Act, Apex Court has held that the order of dismissal does not sustain without there being prior permission.

¶25

In view of the same, petition is allowed. Order of dismissal by the Labour Court is set aside and respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in to service in two months, with continuity of service from the date of dismissal till reinstatement, however, without back wages.

¶26

Sd/- Judge

¶27

Marappa S/O. Kariyappa, v. the Management of Nwkrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marappa S/O. Kariyappa, v. the Management of Nwkrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beera Sidda Banne Vs Mohammad Imam Koujalagi

Ganapati, S/O.Ramu Patil Vs Ashok,S/O. Ramachandra Chavan

G Hulikuntappa S/O G Huleppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Pavitra Madiwallappa Matti Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa Vs Mudakappa

Ganapathi Gennappa Desai Vs the Adhyaksha Gram Panchayath Nerse