Dismissed

D K Malleshappa v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/7101/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition was filed to quash a Labour Court award dismissing a reinstatement claim and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner for unauthorized absence. The petitioners claimed the absence was due to hernia, supported by medical documents. The court found most documents insufficient to cover the 357-day absence period and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; no reinstatement or back wages was granted.

D K Malleshappa Vs the Divisional Controller — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 7101 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7101 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

D.K. MALLESHAPPA, S/O KARIYAPPA, AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A DONNEKORANA HALLI, YAGATI POST-577 140, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.C. BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC, CHICKMAGALURU DIVISION, CHICKMAGALURU-577 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 14.10.2019 IN IDA NO.3/2019 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, CHICKMAGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF

¶17

¶18

WP No. 7101 of 2020

¶19

REINSTATEMENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶23

following reliefs:

¶24

i) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned award dated 14.10.2019 in IDA No.3/2019 passed by the Labour Court, Chickmagaluru, vide Annexure-A to the writ petition and

¶25

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including full back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement under the facts and circumstances of the case or

¶26

iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

The petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant by the respondent with effect from 12.08.1989 and came to be dismissed with effect from 20.09.2018 on

¶28

account of unauthorized absence on several occasions. It is in that background, that the

¶29

¶30

WP No. 7101 of 2020

¶31

petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court at Chikkamagaluru. The Labour Court dismissed the said dispute and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Sri M.C.Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the absence on part of the petitioner is bonafide, inasmuch as the petitioner was suffering from several medical ailments which prevented the petitioner from attending to his work. The petitioner being unable to do so, on that basis, he submit that these aspects have been established by production of documents at Exs.W.2 to W.18 being various medical reports, which would indicate that he was suffering from hernia. These aspects not having been taken into consideration by the Labour Court, the order of the Labour Court is required to be set aside.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 7101 of 2020

¶35

Per contra, Ms. H.R.Renuka, the learned counsel for the respondent - Road Transport Corporation would submit that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and has been absent on several occasions. In the case, as regards which a show cause notice was issued, the petitioner was absent for a period of 357 days without any information being given to the respondent authorities. The show cause notice having been issued, enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer has categorically held that the charges are proved. The Labour Court having considered all these aspects has held the enquiry to be fair and proper and after considering all the documents, has rejected the claim of the petitioner and as such, she submits that this Court may not interfere in the matter.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 7101 of 2020

¶39

The only basis on which the petitioner claims that the petitioner was absent is on the basis of Exs.W.2 to W.18. A perusal of Exs.W.2 to W.18 indicates that most of them are general laboratory reports/clinical reports and there are only two documents in Ex.W.10 which indicates that the petitioner had hernia which is dated 16.03.2017, the petitioner has been hospitalised on that day and been discharged on 27.03.2017. The other documents which refers to the said hernia is Ex.W.13 which is dated 13.03.2017 and the rest of the documents are prescriptions and out-patient records. The only period which could be probably excused is between 13.03.2017 and 27.03.2017 and the recovery period thereafter and not the period of 357 days which the petitioner has remained unathorizedly absent. I am of the considered view that there are no documents which have been produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court and/or before this Court justifying the

¶40

¶41

WP No. 7101 of 2020

¶42

absence of the petitioner. The Labour Court has considered all the documents in the proper perspective and dismissed the claim of the petitioner.

¶43

I do not find any reasons to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

D K Malleshappa v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D K Malleshappa v. the Divisional Controller

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

Sri. Raghavendra Enterprises Vs M/S Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries

H Manjunath Vs Mrs R Chandana

Mrs R M Sathya Prema Devi Vs R Sivakumar

Nirmala @ Basalingavva Vs the Managing Director

N. Nagaraj Vs the Divisional Controller

The Karnataka State Road Vs R Chandrashekar