Dismissed

Ramappa S/O.Kallappa Nandajavlkar, Age 55 Years v. the Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubli Division

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2017WP/66197/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 227, the petitioner challenged the dismissal order of the Labour Court, which upheld his dismissal for unauthorized absence. The High Court found no error in the Labour Court's order as the petitioner failed to lead evidence for his absence and had prior disciplinary irregularities, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no interference with the Labour Court's order is granted; no costs.

Ramappa S/O.Kallappa Nandajavlkar, Age 55… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

�

¶2

�� !"��#�#$#��%�� "�� %� !&'�#��#�#$#��!&'�#

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.66197 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMAPPA S/o. KALLAPPA NANDAJAVLKAR, AGE 55 YEARS OCC: NIL, AT POST: CHIGALLI, TQ MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. M H BHAT ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(By SMT. SHASHIKALA L DESAI ADV.)

¶15

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

¶16

�

¶17

�� !"��#�#$#��%�� "�� %� !&'�#��#�#$#��!&'�#

¶18

A. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURES-D AND F FROM THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI.

¶19

B. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT ON ISSUE NO.1, DATED:27/05/2009 IN K.I.D. NO.54/05, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT IN K.I.D. NO.54/05, DATED:05/04/2010, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F.

¶20

C. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶21

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

¶22

�

¶23

�� !"��#�#$#��%�� "�� %� !&'�#��#�#$#��!&'�#

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Mr. M H BHAT , Adv. for petitioner. Mrs. SHASHIKALA L DESAI , Adv. for respondent.

¶26

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of

¶27

the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Hubballi, in KID No.54 of 2005, Ramappa Kallappa Nanda Javalkar Vs. The Management of NWKRTC, Hubli.

¶28

By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court

¶29

has upheld the dismissal order of the petitioner-workman who was working as a driver in the respondent-Transport Corporation. The reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court

¶30

below in the impugned order are quoted below for ready reference:

¶31

“ 12. In this case, the petitioner remained unauthorised absent from 3.4.2003 without submitting any leave application or without taking

¶32

�

¶33

�� !"��#�#$#��%�� "�� %� !&'�#��#�#$#��!&'�#

¶34

prior permission from the superior officer. It is his case that he was not keeping well and he has taken treatment in the hospital. No medical certificate produced either before the enquiry officer or before this Court.

¶35

13. In a decision in ILR 2001 KAR.4199 (The Divisional Controller NWKRTC –VS– Raghavendra Mahadeva Katti), it is stated that “unauthorised absence is gross misconduct and gross violation of discipline. The unauthorised absence greatly jeopardises the functioning of the establishments and it will certainly have serious repercussions on the functioning of the Corporation and hinder services to the public for which the said Corporations have been brought into existence under the provisions of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1951. By placing misplaced sympathies and benevolence, gravity of such misconducts and acts of indiscipline cannot be mitigated.” In that case, for unauthorised absence of 162 days, our Hon’ble High Court restored the

¶36

�

¶37

�� !"��#�#$#��%�� "�� %� !&'�#��#�#$#��!&'�#

¶38

order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶39

14. In the dismissal order passed by the respondent, it is observed that the petitioner did not join the duty till the date of dismissal order. Initially, he did not participate in the proceedings. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner involved in 6 unauthorised absent cases prior to this incident. There is a recital in the charge-sheet regarding this aspect. The petitioner in the crossexamination admitted that he was involved in 6 cases prior to this incident and minor penalties were imposed against him. He further admitted that if a Driver remains unauthorised absent, the Corporation has to cancel the trips and in that event, the Corporation incur loss. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent against the petitioner is not shockingly disproportionate to the proved charge. Hence, issue no.2 is answered in the affirmative. ”

¶40

�

¶41

�� !"��#�#$#��%�� "�� %� !&'�#��#�#$#��!&'�#

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman

¶43

urged that the penalty of dismissal for unauthorised absence from 03.11.2003 till the date of his dismissal on 28.05.2005 was shockingly disproportionate penalty and invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court could have imposed a lesser penalty.

¶44

The learned counsel for the respondent, however, supported the impugned order.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties,

¶46

this Court is satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order of the learned Labour Court. The present petitioner did not assign any reason or lead any evidence before the Labour Court below about his so called medical conditions for remaining unauthorisedly absent from 03.11.2003 till the date of his dismissal on 28.05.2005. No oral or documentary evidence was led before the learned Labour Court and except

¶47

�

¶48

�� !"��#�#$#��%�� "�� %� !&'�#��#�#$#��!&'�#

¶49

the vague explanation given that he was “unwell”, no evidence was adduced by him. The learned Labour Court has also noted that he was involved in other six disciplinary cases and minor penalties were imposed upon him when he was in service.

¶50

Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that no interference is called for in the present Writ Petition in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit

¶51

and the same is accordingly dismissed . No Costs.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

RK/-

Ramappa S/O.Kallappa Nandajavlkar, Age 55 Years v. the Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubli Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramappa S/O.Kallappa Nandajavlkar, Age 55 Years v. the Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubli Division

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

The Divisional Controller Vs K.Venkobappa

Chidananada S/O Guddappa Aralikatti Vs the Deputy Commissioner

K C Y Swamy Vs the Institute of Nephro-Urology

Parvathi Subray Nayak Vs the Principal Accountanat General

Shri Mahadev Vs the Management of Water Shed

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