Disposed

Karnataka State Road Transport v. Gangappa

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021WA/2498/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of connected writ appeals involving an employee's reinstatement after dismissal for unauthorized absence. The Court upheld the Single Judge's order, directing reinstatement with continuity of service but denying entitlement to back wages and monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement with continuity of service and notional salary fixation granted; entitlement to back wages and monetary benefits denied.

Karnataka State Road Transport Vs Gangappa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.3131/2018

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO.2498/2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶11

IN WRIT APPEAL NO.3131/2018

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

SRI.GANGAPPA S/O BEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT BASAVESHWARANAGAR BYADARAHALLI VISHWANEEDAM POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 091

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI.K.SRINIVASA, ADV.,)

¶16

AND:

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSORE CITY DIVISION, MYSORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER PIN CODE NO.570 001.

¶18

… RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.,)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.2012/2013, DATED 11/06/2018, ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF THE 50% OF BAKWAGES AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶22

IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2498/2018

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSORE CITY DIVISION, MYSORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027

¶25

…APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.,)

¶27

AND: GANGAPPA S/O BEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT BASAVESHWARANAGAR BYADARAHALLI VISHWANEEDAM POST YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE-560 091

¶28

… RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI.K.SRINIVASA K., ADV.,)

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 11/06/2018 IN WP NO.2012/2013 AND ETC.

¶31

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

WA No.3131/2018 is filed by the employee and the connected appeal i.e., WA No.2498/2018 is filed by the Corporation against the impugned order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2012/2013 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Gangappa).

¶35

Regard being had to the similitude controversy involved in these two cases, they were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed.

¶36

The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court was serving as a driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and remained absent unauthorizedly with effect from 17.05.1999 to 07.10.1999. A charge sheet was issued on 16.08.1999 and after conducting enquiry in the matter, he was held guilty by the Enquiry officer and finally the disciplinary authority inflicted a punishment vide order dated 28.09.2009. He was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Mysuru, in Reference No.69/2003 and an award was passed on 29.10.2009 declining to grant any relief to the workman. Against which, a writ petition was preferred before

¶37

¶38

this Court i.e., WP No.27786/2011 challenging the award dated 23.03.2009. This Court, after hearing the parties at length, has remanded the matter to the Labour Court and finally again, an award was passed on 24.10.2011 directing reinstatement of the workman. The Labour Court has modified the punishment of dismissal from service by withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect along with 50% back wages from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement.

¶39

The respondent-corporation being aggrieved by the award preferred a writ petition i.e., WP No.2012/2013 and the same has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Paragraph 5 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

¶40

“ 5. Be that as it may, even in that background when the charge presently is of unauthorized absence and is not any other serious charge constituting any offence involving moral turpitude and in that background the award of the Labour Court is of imposing the alternate punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect it will stand justified. However, in the circumstances, in a matter of the present nature where the charge against the respondent is held proved and is one of having remained unauthorizedly

¶41

¶42

absent for the period as stated and also keeping in view, the fact that the Labour Court at the first instance had rejected the reference and was remitted to the Labour Court for reconsideration, in that circumstance, the grant of back wages would not be justified. Further, grant of consequential benefits in monetary terms would not be appropriate. Therefore to that extent the award stands modified holding that the respondent would not be entitled for back wages in monetary terms as granted by the Labour Court and insofar as the consequential benefits, the petitioner shall take the same in notional terms for the purpose of fixing the salary as on the date of re-instatement by taking into consideration the continuity of service as held by the Labour Court.

¶43

Hence, on modifying the award only to the said extent, the instant petition stands disposed of .”

¶44

The aforesaid order reveals that the learned Single

¶45

Judge has taken into account the fact that the misconduct against the workman was established and the labour Court did not interfere in respect of the departmental enquiry. It has also been held that the unauthorized absence for the period w.e.f. 17.05.1999 to 07.10.1999 was held to be proved and in those circumstances, relief granted to the workman has been confined to that of reinstatement and notional fixation for the

¶46

¶47

purposes of fixing the salary as on the date of reinstatement by taking into account the continuity of service.

¶48

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the workman is entitled for 50% of backwages and notional fixation of salary as well as the continuity of service.

¶49

In the connected appeal filed by the Corporation i.e., WA No. 2498/2018, learned counsel for the Corporation is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court dated 24.10.2011 by which reinstatement of the workman has been ordered.

¶50

This Court has carefully gone through the order impugned in the present writ appeal. Payment of backwages is not automatic. It depends upon various factors. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted. The findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court in respect of the enquiry reveals that the enquiry was conducted as per the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice were also followed and keeping in view the misconduct the workman has been reinstated.

¶51

¶52

In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has directed reinstatement without back wages. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge to the extent of reinstatement with backwages has been ordered, it was a case of absence with effect from 17.05.1999 to 07.10.1999 on account of illness as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶53

Resultantly, the writ appeals are disposed of. The

¶54

workman in question shall be entitled for reinstatement. However, he shall not be entitled for backwages. It is also made clear that the workman shall also be entitled for notional fixation of salary as on the date of reinstatement taking into the continuity of service.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Karnataka State Road Transport v. Gangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport v. Gangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sri Surendra Kedia

M/S Standard Elastomers Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S. Sutures India Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Union of India Vs N P Ramesan

Ishwara Naik Vs State of Karnataka

The Chairman and the Managing Director Vs the Union of India