Dismissed

The Management of N.W.K.R.T.C., v. Yaseen S/O Mahammad-Gori Attar

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2012WP/61281/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by management sought to quash an Addl. Labour Court award reinstating a driver dismissed for unauthorized absence. The High Court relied on precedence requiring prior approval for dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the reinstatement award was dismissed.

The Management of N.W.K.R.T.C., Vs Yaseen… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.61281 OF 2012(L-KSRTC)

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Management of N.W.K.R.T.C., Belgaum Division, Represented by its Divisional Controller, Belgaum Division, Belgaum. by its Chief Law Officer, Central Office, Gokul Road, Hubli-580030.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(By Smt P R Bentur, Adv)

¶11

And :

¶12

Shri Yaseen, 41 years S/o Mahammad-gori Attar, R/o Yakkundi, Tq: Savadatti, Dist: Belgaum.

¶13

..RESPONDENT

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order of reinstate be quashed through award

¶15

¶16

passed by the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli in KID No.38/2009 dated 22.12.2010 which has been produced at Annexure ‘A’.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner-Management has sought to quash the award passed by the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli in KID No.38/2009 in reinstating the respondent to duty.

¶20

Respondent, who was working as driver in the

¶21

petitioner-Corporation, has been dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence for a period of 207 days. In the dispute raised, the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli in KID No.38/2009 has set aside the dismissal order passed. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner-Management is before

¶22

this Court.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

¶25

The Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zilla

¶26

Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramgopal Sharma

¶27

and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 643 has held that on failure on the part of Corporation in not seeking approval of

¶28

the proposed dismissal by filing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the order of dismissal

¶29

is void and inoperative and entitles the workman to wages.

¶30

The Tribunal having noted that the dismissal order

¶31

has been passed without compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, has ordered for reinstatement of the respondent, which cannot be found fault with.

¶32

Hence, petition is dismissed. However, the

¶33

Management can very well negotiate with the workman for

¶34

imposing any minor penalty.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Bkp

The Management of N.W.K.R.T.C., v. Yaseen S/O Mahammad-Gori Attar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of N.W.K.R.T.C., v. Yaseen S/O Mahammad-Gori Attar

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

Mallikarjun Siddanagouda Goudar Vs the Divisional Controller

Dr. A.B. Khot Vs the State of Karnataka

The Management of Veerashaiva College Vs Kumari C Padmakshi

Wajidatabassum D/O.Bashirahemad Sayyed Vs the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Edu Govt of

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Bellada Bagewadi Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Hescom Corporate Office