Dismissed

The Divisional Controller, v. S G Kulkarni

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2017WP/63527/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal's award which set aside a punishment order. The Court held that the punishment was unsustainable as the alleged breach concerned a circular that was never notified to the workman.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within three months.

The Divisional Controller, Vs S G Kulkarni — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.63527/2012(L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

S.G.KULKARNI AGE:MAJOR, OCC:SERVICE, R/O H.NO.14029, PLOT NO.78, GANDHI NAGAR, DHARWAD.

¶12

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE & M.H. BHAT, ADVS.)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TE AWARD DATED 12.3.2010 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN ID NO.19/2005 COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E.

¶14

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.63527/2012(L-KSRTC) The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Vs. S.G.Kulkarni:

¶15

��

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Smt. Veena Hegde, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Hegde, Adv. for respondent.

¶19

The petitioner-NWRTC(for brevity, ‘Corporation’)

¶20

has challenged, by way of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the award dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in ID No.19/2005,

¶21

Sri. S.G. Kulkarni Vs. The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC,

¶22

by which, the learned Industrial Tribunal held in favour of the respondent workman that the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 25.11.2002 imposing the punishment of withholding an one increment on the ground that the respondent workman-S.G. Kulkarni was found to be carrying cash of Rs.1267/- in his pocket on the date of the inspection i.e. 7.11.2001, but did not disclose to the Management in terms of the Circular No.777 and in a Domestic

¶23

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.63527/2012(L-KSRTC) The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Vs. S.G.Kulkarni:

¶24

��

¶25

Enquiry, he was found guilty and was punished with the aforesaid punishment order dated 25.11.2002.

¶26

The said order came to be set-aside by the Industrial Tribunal by the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 . Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Corporation has

¶27

approached this Court by way of writ petition.

¶28

During the course of the arguments, it transpired and as noted by the learned Industrial Tribunal that the said Circular No.777, the very basis of initiating of action against the respondent workman, was not even notified to the workmen and therefore, requirement of making a suitable declaration at the time of the entry for work was not known to the workman. Therefore, under the bonafide belief, he carried the said cash of Rs.1,267/- as his personal cash and gave an explanation before the Disciplinary Authority stating that to purchase the household articles, he carried the cash and working as an Artisan, he could not have received any bribe money from any other person within the premises where he was working. While holding that the

¶29

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.63527/2012(L-KSRTC) The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Vs. S.G.Kulkarni:

¶30

��

¶31

Domestic Enquiry was just and fair and also noticing that the

¶32

said Circular No.777 was never informed to the workman in general and to the respondent in particular, the learned Industrial Tribunal set-aside the punishment order.

¶33

Upon a Court query, Smt. Veena Hegde, the

¶34

learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation also could not produce the said Circular No.777 and the same was not placed before this Court with the present writ petition also. She, however, submits that the Regulations were breached by the respondent workman, therefore, punishment order was justified.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶36

respondent Workman, Mr. Ravi Hegde, supported the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli.

¶37

Considering the submissions made at Bar, this

¶38

Court is satisfied that no interference in the impugned order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal,

¶39

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.63527/2012(L-KSRTC) The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Vs. S.G.Kulkarni:

¶40

��

¶41

Hubli, is called for. The very foundation of the disciplinary

¶42

action against the respondent workman was Circular No.777, which was never produced either before the learned Industrial Tribunal or before this Court and there is no evidence on record that the same was made known to the workmen in general and to the respondent workman in particular.

¶43

Therefore, there is no question of punishment of a

¶44

man without regulations being first made known to him. Carrying a paltry sum of Rs.1267/- for purchase of household articles, which was validly explained by the respondent workman ought to have hardly invited the disciplinary action, resulting in punishment of withholding of one increment and that cannot be sustained. Unwarranted initiation of disciplinary action can cause a serious dent in the morale of the workmen and they can never develop the sense of belongingness in the employer Institution, if such ill found disciplinary actions were sustained by the Court of law upon a judiciary scrutiny.

¶45

Date of Order: 10.03.2017 in WP No.63527/2012(L-KSRTC) The Divisional Controller, NWKRTC Vs. S.G.Kulkarni:

¶46

��

¶47

The Industrial Tribunal having set-aside the

¶48

punishment order, the employer Corporation appears to have mechanically persisted with the same and has even filed this writ petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, merely because an adverse order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal, they approached this Court by way of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, without even laying any foundation for the same. Such misconceived writ petition on the part of the Government organization, like NWKRTC adds to the burden of the dockets of this Court and deserves to be deprecated strongly.

¶49

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner Corporation to the respondent workman within three months.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

JTR

The Divisional Controller, v. S G Kulkarni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller, v. S G Kulkarni

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

M/S Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited Vs Sri K Shivaramappa

The Management of Sri. Dharmastala Vs Smt. Nagamma Alagawadi

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii Vs M/S.Kle Societys College of Pharmacy

The Commissioner of Sericulture Dept of Sericultur Vs Sripat S/O.Laxman Hattikar Sericulture Labour

Mahesh Channappa Huddar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Gowri Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S P G Setty Construction