The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award which rejected a reference regarding the petitioner's penalty for misappropriation, upholding the dismissal of the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued to quash the Labour Court award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.29804 OF 2015 (L-TER)
Between:
H.M.Narayana Son of late Sri Mariyappa Aged about 53 years R/a. No.75 Srinidhi Nilaya, Chamundi Nagara R.T.Nagara Post, Bengaluru – 560 032
... Petitioner
(By Sri R.Krishna Murthy, Advocate appeared through Video Conferencing)
And:
2
Bangalore – 560052 Represented by its Chairman
... Respondents
(By Sri. G.B.Nandish Gowda, Advocate, for R1 appeared through video conferencing Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dtd:5/17-9-2003 issued by R-1 the order dtd:22.12.2004 passed by R-2 and the award dtd:29.04.2011 in Ref.No.10/2007 passed by the Hon’ble II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore which are submitted as Annexure-A, B and C to this writ petition.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the award of the Labour Court dated 29.04.2011 in Reference No.10/2007, whereby, the Labour Court has rejected the reference.
3
petition are:
The petitioner joined the services of
respondent No.1 – M/s. Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’ for short) as a daily wage employee on 01.07.1986. It is claimed that in the year 1993, his services were regularized in the cadre of Junior Assistant/Sales Assistant.
4
submitted his reply on 20.8.2002 admitting his guilt.
the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal by his order dated 22.12.2004 modifying the order of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement.
5
by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court as to whether the Appellate Authority was right in only modifying the penalty of dismissal from services to compulsory retirement. The Labour Court by its order dated 29.04.2011 rejected the reference owing to admission of guilt by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner is before this Court.
Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
contend that the Labour Court has grossly erred in not considering the fact that there is gross disparity between charge sheet and statement of
6
imputations. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that
the petitioner has misappropriated Rs.52,256/and Rs.22,355/-, whereas, the statement of imputations would clearly indicate that remaining amount of Rs.22,355/- is deposited by the petitioner in a staggered manner on different dates and hence, the very imputations is erroneous and the observation of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner has misappropriated both the amounts namely Rs.52,256/and Rs.22,355/- is contrary to the statement of imputations and the same is vitiated.
7
misappropriation/temporary misappropriation of funds by its employees which he has pleaded in paragraph No.15 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the admission given by the petitioner was on account of ignorance of the consequence of such admission. He would submit that much emphasis should not be laid upon the same. More so, in the light of disparity in the statement of imputations, the objections filed before the Labour Court and the evidence of management witness before the Labour Court.
8
and there is no disparity in the same and the fact remains that the petitioner made an unequivocal admission while submitting his defence statement to the charge sheet and the statement of imputations.
Court.
9
“That Sri.H.M.Narayana, Junior Assistant, Office of the District Manager (North) while working as Sales Assistant at Ramachandrapura retail point, during March 2001 and April 2001, he has not remitted the sale proceeds of Rs.52,256-00 and
10
Rs.22,355-00 respectively to the Bank and utilized the same for his personal gain and thereby committed misconduct as per the KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966.”
Statement of imputations on the charges read
as follows:
“While working as the Sales Assistant of Ramachandrapura Retail Point, Sri. H.M.Narayana has not remitted the sales proceeds pertaining to March 2001 and April 2001 amounting to Rs.52,256/- and Rs.22,355/-, to the bank on the respective dates.
Sri. H.M.Narayana, Junior Assistant, has remitted the sale proceeds of March 2001 amounting to Rs.52,256/vide Receipt No.3908 dated 7-5-2001. As regards sale proceeds of April 2001 amounting to Rs.22,355/-, he has remitted Rs.12,005 on 14-5-2001 and
11
Rs.10,350 on 17-5-2001. In this manner, he has remitted the sale proceeds belatedly and thus the charge is proved.”
12
proceedings are required to be conducted against a delinquent employee. It would be hypertechnical, to accept such a contention, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so in the light of the reply given by the petitioner to the charge sheet and the statement of imputations.
13
communication dated 20.08.2002 which reads as
follows:
“EAzÀ. H.M .£ÁgÁAiÀÄt Q.¸À./ªÀiÁ¸À PÀ.D.ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á.¸À.¤.¤ f.ªÀå GvÀÛgÀ «¨sÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560022
UÉ, ¥ÀæzsÁ£À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ.D.ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á.¸À.¤.¤. PÀA§½ ¨sÀªÀ£À ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ -560001 ¸À£Áä£ÀågÉ,
G¯ÉèÃR:- ¸ÀA/PÀ D £Á ¸À £À /²¸ÀÄÛ/35/2002-03/448/3618 ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.07.2002 26
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢ü¹zÀ ²æà H.M .£ÁgÁAiÀÄt DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ C£ÀħAzsÀ-1, gÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ vÁªÀÅ w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁZÀð 01 ºÁUÀÆ K¥Àæ¯ï 01 gÀ°è PÀæªÀĪÁV 52,256/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 22,355 ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ ºÀt zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÉAiÉÆÃUÀªÁVgÀĪÀ DgÆÃ¥É «gÀ ĪÀ ÅzÀ ÄÀ
¸vÀ Ê«gÉ ÄvÀ ÛzÀ . ¸É zÀ j ºÀ tªÀ £À Äß £Á£À Ä ªÀ Äà 2001 gÉ °è ¤UÀ ªÀ izÀ À ¤AiĪÀ iÁ½AiÀ Ä£À éAiÀ Ä §rØ ¸À ªÀ ÄÃvÉ dªÀ iÁªÀ iÁrgÀ ÄvÀ ÛÃ£É .É
14
vÁªÅ ¤ÃrgÀ ĪÀ PÁgÀ t PÀ ý ¥É vÀ æzÀ £À éAiÀ Ä £À ¤ßAzÀ DzÀ À ¥æªÀ iÁzÀ ªÀ £À Äß £Á£À Ä M¦àPÀ ÆAqÉ Ä FUÁUÀ ¯À à ¥ÁæAiÉ Ä²ÑvÀ ÛÀ C£¨sÀ «¹gÀ ÄvÀ ÛÃ£É . DzÉ ÝjAzÀ zÀ AiÀ iÁ¼À ÄUÀ ¼ÁzÀ vÁªÀ ÅUÀ ¼À Ä FÀ ££À ß À v¥À à£À Äß À ªÄ¤ß¸À ¨À ÃPÁV É vªÀ Ää°è À P滃 ÄÄVzÀ ÄÀ PýPÉ Æ¼É ÄîwÛzÀ ÝÃ£É .É
ºÀt ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ bÁAiÀÄ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À«/ GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆÃA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.”
(emphasis supplied)
extracted reply clearly admitted the allegation of misappropriation to be true. His defence was that he has refunded or remitted the amount misappropriated way back in the year 2001 and is remorseful for the acts committed by him. Except saying this, there is no reply given by the petitioner contesting the charge or the statement of imputations.
15
“(5) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an Inquiring Authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government Servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its
16
findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule
11-A.
(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government Servant, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint, under sub-rule (2) an Inquiring Authority for the purpose.
(c) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself inquires into any articles of charge or appoints an Inquiring Authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner to be known as the “Presenting Officer” to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.”
(emphasis supplied)
17
the enquiry against the Government Servant will have to be conducted only in respect of those charges that were not admitted by the employee in the defence statement given by him/her. If the admission of the petitioner in terms of his aforeextracted communication dated 20.08.2002 is juxtaposed with that of Rules it would unmistakably indicate that disciplinary authority was justified in exercising power in terms of Rule 11A based upon complete admission of guilt of the petitioner.
18
retirement, the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to Labour Court to consider whether the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement is valid in law.
the relevant reasoning of the Labour Court reads as follows:
“15. From the material placed on record, it is quite evident that first party had made short remittance to the tune of Rs.52,256/and Rs.22,355/- for the months of March and April 2001. He has made late deposit of Rs.52,256/- only after the show cause notice was issued and in view of the late remittance he has not chosen to deposit interest at per Ex.M.4 and Ex.M.5. Though first party has
19
claimed that he has deposited Rs.22,355/-, there are no documents to evidence the said fact. By depositing Rs.52,256/- as well as claiming to have deposited Rs.22,355/- first party has admitted the charges leveled against him. Such being the case, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be accepted that he has given reply admitting the charges at the instance of one H.S.Prakash. If at all first party had not committed the misconduct in question, he would not have certainly admitted the charges at whoever’s instance. The very fact that he has not chosen to given any complaint against H.S.Prakash goes to show that as an after thought he is claiming that reply was given at the instance and assurance of H.S.Prakash. The defence taken by him before this Court is inconsistent with his conduct. Though there is late remittance of Rs.52,256/leading to temporary misappropriation, he has failed to remit the
20
balance of Rs.22,355/-. Consequently, he is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him.”
reasoning, the Labour Court rejected the dispute.
For the aforesaid reasons, there is no warrant for interference with the findings of the Labour Court, which has affirmed the penalty on clear consideration of facts and analysis of evidence lead before it.
21
opposite of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court Union of India v. International Trading Co., reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437.
“ 13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of permission granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission, that may render such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic
22
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short “the Constitution”) cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality.
other employees of the Corporation in different proceedings at different point in time, albeit in identical misconduct would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to contend that the same penalty ought to be imposed upon him as well.
23
Thus, none of the contentions urged by the
petitioner sounds acceptance.
dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
HJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Labour Court's award rejecting the reference to quash an award based on nominal admission of guilt by the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to equal treatment by claiming the Corporation imposed lesser penalties on other employees for identical misconduct under Article 14.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. International Trading Co.Referred¶111
Union of India v. International Trading Co.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
H.M. Narayana
M/s. Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
M. Nagaprashna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
