Partly allowed

The Divisional Controller, v. Maruti S/O. Chavappa Harijan

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2012WP/61078/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held partly along duplicating text, the High Court affirmed the respondent's reinstatement but set aside the 50% back wages, ordering instead that two increments be withheld without cumulative effect while maintaining service continuity. Non-binding reference. Dated 24.09.2012. Writ Petition No.61078 of 2012. Karnataka HC.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement within two months; 50% back wages set aside; two increments withheld without cumulative effect; service continuity maintained.

The Divisional Controller, Vs Maruti S/O… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.61078 OF 2012(L-KSRTC)

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Belgaum Division, Belgaum - represented by its C L O, NWKRTC Central Office, Hubli.

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

(By Sri Shivakumar S Badawadagi, Adv)

¶12

And :

¶13

Maruti S/o Chavappa Harijan, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Ex Conductor, R/o Basava sadan, No.2138/42, By pass road, Savadatti, Tq: Savadati, Dist: Belgaum.

¶14

..RESPONDENT

¶15

(By Sri G P Wadikar, Adv)

¶16

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of

¶17

¶18

certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Hubli in KID No.36/2010 the copy of the same is produced and marked as Annexure-E to the writ petition and consequently be pleased to dismiss the KID No.36/2010 filed by the respondent on the file of Presiding Officer Additional Labour Court, Hubli.

¶19

This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari-to

¶22

quash the order dated 31.5.2011 at Annexure E passed in KID No.36/2010 and the order dated 11.1.2011 at Annexure ‘D’

¶23

passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli.

¶24

On 4.10.2004, when the respondent was intercepted

¶25

while he was working as a conductor in the route from Kolhapur to Bailhongal, it was found that he had altered the Waybill. The defense taken by the workman is that it was endorsed by the Traffic Controller. Ultimately, he has admitted his guilt. Thereafter, on enquiry by the disciplinary authority, articles of charge were issued to him and the

¶26

¶27

respondent has submitted his reply. Being not satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority has held him guilty of the charges leveled against him and dismissed him from service, against which, in the dispute raised before the Labour Court, it has held that enquiry held is not fair and proper and accordingly, while allowing the petition, has set aside the order of dismissal and ordered of reinstatement of the respondent into service with 50% of back wages with continuity of service. Hence, this petition.

¶28

3. Heard.

¶29

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when respondent himself has admitted his guilt of making alteration in the Waybill, the question of throwing the blame on the Traffic Controller does not arise. Though enquiry held is fair and proper, without application of mind and without

¶30

¶31

assigning any reasons, the Labour Court has held that enquiry held is not fair and proper.

¶32

In paragraph 9 of the award, the Labour Court has observed that, the alleged incident took place on 4.10.2004 and enquiry was completed on 26.7.2005 and after lapse of 4 years, the workman was dismissed from service on 11.9.2009 and that the Management has taken nearly 5 years to complete the enquiry. It is seen that the enquiry has been completed within 10 months from the date of incident, but after four years of the completion of enquiry, on issuance of Show Cause Notice, action has been initiated dismissing the workman from service. On the mistaken impression that the Management has taken nearly 5 years to complete the enquiry, the Labour Court has reversed the finding of the disciplinary authority, which is without application of mind.

¶33

¶34

So far as the misconduct alleged against the workman

¶35

is concerned, the defense taken by the workman is, the abstract issuing clerk has committed mistake in mentioning the abstract as 164 instead of 177 and the Labour Court has held that the Checking Inspector ought to have noticed the mistake committed by the abstract issuing clerk. It has also accepted the explanation of the workman that he approached the Traffic Inspector and informed him that due to wrong mentioning of ticket number in the abstract he was made to pay excess amount and the concerned clerk refused to mention the same in the passbook. It has also observed that the Management has not examined any witness to deny the version of the workman. So as a matter of fact finding, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the version of the workman, it has arrived at such a conclusion and also on the ground that the misconduct occurred has not been noted by the checking squad.

¶36

¶37

The allegation against the workman is, he has resold 13 tickets of Rs.24/- denomination and failed to deposit the value of those tickets i.e., Rs.232/-. There is said to be past misconduct of 31 cases against the workman and he is said to have pleaded guilty before the Enquiring Authority. The Labour Court has not noticed the contrary stand taken by the workman. Though benefit of doubt was given to the workman by the Labour Court, there was no justification for granting 50% back wages since it is not that without there being any misconduct dismissal order was passed by the Management.

¶38

In the circumstances, while sustaining the order of reinstatement of the workman passed by the Labour Court, the order passed to pay 50% backwages is set aside and it is also hereby ordered to withhold two increments of the workman without cumulative effect. However, he is entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal till his

¶39

¶40

reinstatement. The respondent be reinstated into service

¶41

within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶42

Petition is allowed in part.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

bkp

The Divisional Controller, v. Maruti S/O. Chavappa Harijan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller, v. Maruti S/O. Chavappa Harijan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarappagouda S/O Sannafakirappagouda Vs the Management of

Shobha W/O Kuberappa Kattimani @ Dasar Vs the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary to Woman

Shivaputrappa S/O Shivabasappa Deshannavar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Dharwad Milk Union Vs the Employees Provident Fund

Saleema D/O. Akramsab Saiyad, Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Venkataraman S/O. Narayan Hegade Vs the State of Karnataka