Partly allowed

The Management of Nekrtc, v. Sanganabasappa

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2019WP/63465/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court modified an Industrial Tribunal order regarding a retired employee's misconduct punishment. Dismissing the quashing petition but avoiding a retrial to prevent hardship, the court upheld the salary reduction, imposed withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, and ordered the employer to release retrospective retirement benefits within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal order affirmed; one increment withholding set aside and replaced with three increments with cumulative effect;employer ordered to release retirement benefits within 30 days.

The Management of Nekrtc, Vs Sanganabasappa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.63465/2012 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC, BELLARY DIVISION, R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELLARY, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY, R/BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAN, GULBARGA.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

SANGANABASAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, R/O. C/O. GENERAL SECRETARY NEKRTC, EMPLOYEES UNION, NEAR DIVSION OFFICE, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADV.)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08/11/2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN I.D.NO.86/2006 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE I.D. NO.86/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent employee.

¶20

The facts are not in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the Tribunal ought not to have modified the punishment without having rendered the reasons. He would submit that the Tribunal erred in pronouncing the punishment imposed as being little bit harsh without assigning the reasons for the same. He would contend that the punishment imposed is commensurate with the misconduct alleged against the respondent employee.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that remanding the matter at this stage would be onerous and cause untold hardship to the respondent employee who has retired after rendering services for nearly three decades. That the allegation of misdemeanor is the only one and that after the alleged misconduct there are no other complaints or allegations

¶22

¶23

of misconduct and hence he would submit that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner’s conduct has been above board after the alleged misconduct and also keeping in view the fact that he is no more in service and he having retired, it is submitted that the Court may take a lenient view. He would also submit that the respondent has suffered enough and has been living on borrowed money which by itself is an additional punishment. Hence, he would pray this Court that this Court may take a lenient view towards the respondent.

¶24

Though the petitioner is right in contending that the Tribunal ought to have set out reasons for holding the punishment as harsh, the fact remains that the respondent has retired and despite the retirement, the retrial benefits have not been settled, in view of the pendency of the writ petition for the past more than 8 years.

¶25

Though this Court was inclined to remit

¶26

back the matter to the Tribunal for rendering a finding,

¶27

the fact that the respondent has retired, it would only pile on the misery of the senior citizen and hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition could be disposed off by modifying the order imposing the modified punishment by the Tribunal.

¶28

In that view of the matter, the order of Tribunal setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority reducing basic salary to the entry level is affirmed. The punishment imposing withholding of one increment without cumulative effect from 1 month 94 days is set aside and a punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect is imposed. The punishment ordering a suspension period to be treated as one as on duty stands affirmed. The petitioner employer shall accordingly calculate and release the retrial benefits within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

Petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

¶30

¶31

In view of the disposal, there shall be no order as

¶32

to costs.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Rsh

The Management of Nekrtc, v. Sanganabasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nekrtc, v. Sanganabasappa

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

Babulal Vs Manikchand

M/S. Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Dhaivajna Samaj Seva Sangh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Laxmibai W/O Parashuram Beedikar Vs Shri. Sadanand Gundu Beekikar

Babu Maruti Bhosale Vs the Divisional Controller

Dr. N. Maruti Rao S/O. Late Ramanna Vs the Registrar