Partly allowed

Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar v. the Management

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022WP/107256/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a domestic enquiry claim and confirmation of the petitioner's dismissal from service. The High Court modified the dismissal order to withholding four annual increments and directed reinstatement without wages, finding the original punishment disproportionate.

What did the court decide?

The order of dismissal was modified to impose a penalty of withholding four annual increments cumulatively, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated without wages.

Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 107256 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 107256 OF 2019 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YAMANAPPA S/O HANAMANTAPPA SUNGAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: AT: POST: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT N.W.K.R.T.C., GADAG DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONOTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF DISMISSAL OF THE PETITIONER DATED 02.06.2015; AND QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG IN KID NO.58/2015 DATED 17.12.2018 DISMSISING THE CLAIM STATEMENT OF PETTIOINER AND CONFRMNG THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE BY THE RESPODNENT DATED 02.06.2015 BEARING NO.NWKT/GDG/DN/24/14/1927 AND ETC.

¶11

¶12

WP No. 107256 of 2019

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, when working as a conductor in the respondent-corporation, was issued with a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner had failed to issue ticket to one of the passenger and collected fare from him. The enquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report with the disciplinary authority holding that the charge against the workman is proved. The disciplinary authority after issuing second show cause notice dismissed the petitioner from service against which petitioner raised a dispute under section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶16

The issue whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper was treated as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court, after examining the material on record, held that the domestic enquiry held against the workman was not fair and proper.

¶17

Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation lead the evidence of MW.1 and also marked documents as Ex.M.1 to M.20. The workman though lead his evidence did not choose to

¶18

¶19

WP No. 107256 of 2019

¶20

mark any documents. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence on record and also taking into account that the petitioner was involved in 26 similar cases in which the corporation had imposed minor penalty, dismissed the claim petition of the workman, against which the present petition is filed.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner workman submits that the workman had satisfactorily explained the reasons for not issuing ticket to the passenger and collected fare; however, ignoring the same, the Labour Court has dismissed the claim petition and the same is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the order of dismissal is not proportionate to the gravity of the charge and on this ground also the order of dismissal requires to be modified by imposing a lesser penalty.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the charge against the petitioner was duly proved, and the Labour Court taking into account the same and the past history of the workman has

¶23

¶24

WP No. 107256 of 2019

¶25

rightly passed the impugned order, which does not warrant any interference.

¶26

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶27

learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

The Corporation to substantiate its claim examined MW.1 and got marked document as Exs.M.1 to M.20. The workman lead his evidence to substantiate the circumstances under which he could not issue ticket to one of the passengers and collect fare from him. The labour Court taking into consideration the categorical admission of the workman that he had not issued ticket to one of the passengers and collected fare from him and also that workman was involved in 26 similar cases out of which minor penalty was imposed in respect of 21 cases, has passed the impugned order. The order passed by the labour Court is based on the evidence on record and cannot be said to be on the basis of no evidence or improper evidence. This Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless the findings recorded by the Labour Court is perverse and arbitrary.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 107256 of 2019

¶31

The next point that arises for constitution is

¶32

whether the order of dismissal is proportionate to the gravity of charge leveled against the workman.

¶33

The charge against the workman is that he had not issued ticket to one of the passengers and collect fare from him. It is also undisputed that in respect of similar cases, the workman was imposed with minor penalty. The workman had served in the Corporation for more than 12 years as conductor as on the date of dismissal and is left with 14 to 15 years of service. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court ought to have exercised its discretionary power under section 11A of the Act and modified the order of dismissal instead of confirming the same. Hence I am of the view that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charge against the workman and it would be appropriate if the impugned order is modified to one of withholding four annual increments cumulatively . Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 107256 of 2019

¶38

ii) The impugned order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in K.I.D. No.58/2015 is modified by imposing penalty of withholding four annual increments cumulatively.

¶39

iii) The respondent-corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all notional benefits flowing from such reinstatement, however, without wages.

¶40

iv) The respondent-corporation to implement this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

KMS

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar v. the Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar v. the Management

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

Channavva W/O. Chandragouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Villiam Robart Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahalakshmi D/O Mallayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O Malakappa Nayak Vs the Union of India

Lokangouda S/O Basangouda Puttangoudra Vs the State of Karnataka

Umesh S/O Laxman Ghali Vs State of Karnataka