Allowed

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Shri. Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023WA/100270/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order and the Labour Court's award which imposed a minor penalty, and remitted the matter to the Labour Court to reconsider afresh and give proper reasons regarding the proportionality of the punishment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order and award set aside; matter remitted to Labour Court to reconsider afresh and give reasons; disposal within four months.

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Shri. Yamanappa… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100186 OF 2023

¶10

C/W

¶11

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100270 OF 2023

¶12

IN CCC NO.100186 OF 2023:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

YAMANAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA SUNAGAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: EX-DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, R/O AND POST: SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582101.

¶15

…COMPLAINANT

¶16

(BY SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

K M SOMASHEKAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 2023.09.27 11:06:38 +0530

¶19

SRI. G.SEENAYYA DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C., GADAG DIVISION, GADAG-582101.

¶20

(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶21

…ACCUSED

¶22

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION, 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AND TO, PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.107256/2019 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS

¶23

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶24

HON’BLE COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

IN WA NO. 100270 OF 2023:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC GADAG DIVISION, GADAG, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, TALUK: HUBLI-580030, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶28

…APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI.VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SHRI. YAMANAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA SUNGAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: NILL, RES/O. AT POST, SAVADI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582209.

¶32

…RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI.H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

¶34

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, PLEASED TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/12/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.107256/2019 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶35

THIS CONTEMPT PETITION AND WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This Intra Court Appeal by the ManagementNWKRTC is directed against the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.107256/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition preferred by the respondents.

¶39

Heard Smt.Veena Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶40

The material on record discloses that the respondent appointed by the appellant-Corporation was working as driver-cum-conductor from 19.04.2009 onwards. On 25.01.2014, the appellant-Corporation issued Articles of Charges against the respondent inter alia alleging that he had failed to issue ticket to one of the passenger and failed to collect the fare charges of Rs.88/and consequently pilfered the revenue of the Corporation.

¶41

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶42

The respondent having submitted his reply to the Article of Charges, an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the same was forwarded to the appellant-Corporation on 17.01.2015 who issued a show cause notice, to which the respondent gave a reply denying various allegations made by the appellant-Corporation. Subsequently on 02.06.2015, the appellant-Corporation dismissed the respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed claim petition in KID No.5/2015 before the Industrial Tribunal. The said claim having been contested by the appellantCorporation, the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award dated 17.12.2018 dismissing the claim petition.

¶43

Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant-Corporation preferred the aforesaid W.P.No.107256/2019 before this Court.

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶45

After hearing both parties, the learned Single

¶46

Judge came to the conclusion that the past history of the respondent-writ petitioner and the charges leveled against him in the instant case stood proved by the appellantCorporation. However, the learned Single Judge thought it fit to take a lenient view in the matter and modify the

¶47

order of the dismissal into a minor penalty of withholding four annual increments cumulatively. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Corporation is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶48

In addition to reiterating various contention urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the appellantcorporation submits that in the absence of any reasons much less valid or cogent reasons as to why the punishment of dismissal was highly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the respondent, the learned single Judge was not justified in substituting his view regarding

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶50

quantum of punishment and it was only the prerogative of the Labour Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, not this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was sufficient to set aside the impugned order.

¶51

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation, while modifying the order of dismissal and directing imposition of a lower penalty, no reasons have been assigned by the learned single Judge as can be seen from paragraph 9 of the impugned order, except stating that the Labour Court ought to have exercised its discretionary power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this context, it is relevant to state that the Labour Court also has not recorded any finding as to the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the respondent and no finding on Section

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶55

11A of the ID Act has been recorded by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impguend order passed by the learned single Judge as well as the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and remit the matter back to the Labour Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance

¶56

with law within a stipulated time frame.

¶57

In the result, we pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The appeal is hereby allowed.

¶60

ii) The impugned order dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P. No.107256/2019, and the impugned award 17.12.2018 passed in KID No.58/2015 by the Labour Court are hereby set aside.

¶61

iii) The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for recosndieration afresh in accordance with law.

¶62

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10904-DB CCC No. 100186 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100270 of 2023

¶63

iv) The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶64

v) All rival contentions are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶65

vi) Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 25.10.2023 without awaiting further notice from the Labour Court.

¶66

In view of disposal of the appeal, CCC No.100186/2023 is closed.

Sd JUDGE

Sd JUDGE

KGK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Shri. Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Shri. Yamanappa S/O Hanamantappa Sungar

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

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri Vs Sanjeev Kishore

Ksrtc Retired Officers Vs Smt. Arati

Panchaksharayya Pattadayya Hiremath Vs He Land Acquisition Officer and

State of Karnataka the Prn Secretary Higher Educ Educ Deprt M S Building 6TH Fioor Bangaluru Vs Subhas

State of Karnataka the Pri Secretary Higher Educ Deprt M S Building 6TH Floor Bangaluru Vs Rajashekar

P. Chinna Duragappa S/O P. Ankalappa, Since Deceased R/by His Lrs. Vs the State of Karnataka