Dismissed

Shri. Siddappa S/O. Timmanna Bandiwadder v. the Management of N.W.K.R.T.C.

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2017WP/64206/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a writ petition by a retired workman challenging a Labour Court order that reinstated him without back wages or continuity of service. The Court found that since the petitioner had superannuated and retired before this hearing, no interference was called for, upholding the Labour Court's partial award.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Shri. Siddappa S/O. Timmanna Bandiwadder Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

�

¶2

�� !��"#$��%&�'

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.64206 of 2010 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. TIMMANNA BANDIWADDER AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: NIL., R/O: H.NO.2 WADDAR CHAWL, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(By Sri. RAVI HEGDE ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE MANAGEMENT OF N.W.K.R.T.C. HUBLI DIVISION, REPTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(By SMT.P.R.BENTUR ADV.)

¶16

�

¶17

�� !��"#$��%&�'

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶19

A. QUASH THAT PORTION OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, DATED 15/10/2008 IN KID.NO.56/2005 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D BY WHICH THE LABOUR COURT HAS DENIED THE BENEFITS OF BACKWAGES AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE WHICH IS UNJUST AND OPPOSED TO THE SCHEME OF ID ACT 1947.

¶20

B. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO THE ORIGINAL POST WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, FULL BACKWAGES AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THAT DATE OF REINSTATEMENT.

¶21

C. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO PAY THE PETITIONER COST OF THE WRIT PPROCEEDINGS.

¶22

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

�

�� !��"#$��%&�'

O R D E R

Mr. Ravi Hegde , Adv. for petitioner. Mrs. P.R.Bentur , Adv. for respondent.

¶27

The petitioner Sri.Siddappa S/o.Timmanna

¶28

Bandiwadder, the driver working in respondent-NWKRTC has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order and award of the Principal Labour Court, Hubballi, in KID No.56 of 2005 partly allowing the claim petition and while setting aside the dismissal order dated 18^th August 2005, the learned Labour Court has directed only re-instatement into service without backwages and reducing the penalty for withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect and also denying the benefit of continuity of service. The reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court below are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

¶29

�� “ 15. The second show cause notice dated 25.7.2005 Ext.M.15 was accompanied by a list Ext.M.16 in which the previous

¶30

�

¶31

�� !��"#$��%&�'

¶32

instances numbering six have been mentioned. The last one is the present case. Punishment of reduction in basic pay was inflicted in one. It is not clear what penalty was imposed in the rest. The plea of the petitioner is to the effect that he sent the leave letter with medical certificate and the same was not acknowledged. I have already held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate this plea. However, no enquiry appears to have been held before the previous imposition of punishment. In that view of the matter the penalty of dismissal appears to be not commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct. In PEPSU R.T.C. Case supra, the workman had suffered termination twice. Still the order of the Labour Court that the punishment was excessive was not interfered with.

¶33

16. Having given careful attention to all aspects of the matter, and the ruling made available by the learned Counsel for

¶34

�

¶35

�� !��"#$��%&�'

¶36

the petitioner, I am of the view that since in the instant case, the petitioner had failed to co-operate by not responding to the call notice and by not replying to the articles of charge, reinstatement without back wages and without continuity of service and with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and subject to the petitioner undertaking not to absent again, will meet the ends of justice.

¶37

17. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The order of dismissal dated 18-8-2005 is set aside. The petitioner will be reinstated into service without back wages and without continuity of service and will also suffer the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner shall give an undertaking not to absent himself again unauthorisedly. In the peculiar circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

¶38

�

¶39

�� !��"#$��%&�'

¶40

Let a copy of this award be sent to the Government forthwith for its due publication.

¶41

(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected and signed by me on this the 15^th day of October, 2008).

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

District Judge & Presiding officer, Prl. Labour Court, Hubli. ”

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ravi

¶45

Hegde, has urged that though the petitioner-workman has since superannuated and had retired from service of NWKRTC, after his reinstatement in pursuance of the order of the Labour Court in the year 2011, but the benefit of continuity of service ought to have been given by the learned Labour Court and to this extent, the order impugned before this Court deserves to be modified.

¶46

On the other hand, Smt.Bentur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Management, submitted that

¶47

�

¶48

�� !��"#$��%&�'

¶49

against the same order of the learned Labour Court, the NWKRTC had filed Writ Petition No.62844 of 2009 [LKSRTC] which came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14^th March 2017. In the said order, NWKRTC had challenged the direction of reinstatement also. She submitted that on a proved misconduct of absence from duty without the leave sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, the reduced penalty imposed by the Labour Court was justified and no interference in the same is called for.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶51

this Court is satisfied that no interference in the impugned order is called for at this stage, particularly when the petitioner has already superannuated and retired from service of the respondent-NWKRTC. As for the reduced penalty, in view of the proved misconduct of the absence without leave and in view of the previous incidents of disciplinary action against him are the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court for giving the

¶52

�

¶53

�� !��"#$��%&�'

¶54

partial relief to the petitioner-workman and no sufficient reason is found to interfere with the said direction of the Labour Court at this stage, the petition filed by the respondent-NWKRTC has also been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench indirectly upholding the order passed by the Labour Court and in the present Writ Petition also, no justifiable reasons are found to take a different view of the matter in favour of the petitionerworkman at this stage.

¶55

5. However, the retiral benefits due to the petitioner

¶56

may be settled expeditiously and within a period of six months from today, if not already settled.

¶57

Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the

¶58

respondent-workman is also dismissed . No costs.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

RK/-

Shri. Siddappa S/O. Timmanna Bandiwadder v. the Management of N.W.K.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Siddappa S/O. Timmanna Bandiwadder v. the Management of N.W.K.R.T.C.

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

Maheshkumar S/O.Shivaputrappa Bannur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Irawwa D/O Channavirappa Sudi, Vs M/S Krishna Spinners

The Management of Nwkrtc, Vs Sri.Nagappa Manappa Koliwad

Management of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd, Vs Gajanan Binge Bangur Nagar, Dandeli

The Divisional Controller Vs Sharanappa S/O Sangappa Melkundi

The Divisional Controller, Vs Dyamappa S/O Fakirappa Padeppanavar