Dismissed

Sri R Narayana v. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023WA/2588/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal arose from a Single Judge order dismissing claims regarding probation declaration and salary arrears. The Court held that disputed questions of fact on service conditions require adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, justifying the Single Judge's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed for want of writ jurisdiction; the appellant was directed to approach the Industrial Tribunal.

Sri R Narayana Vs the Karnataka State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT APPEAL NO. 2588 OF 2014 (S-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI R. NARAYANA S/O RAJA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS CONDUCTOR (NOW RE-CATEGORIZED AS OFFICE HELPER) BADGE NO.168 MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT DIVISION CITY DEPOT-II, KSRTC MYSORE R/A NO.161/A, LALITHADRIURA POST AND VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 134.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT DIVISION, MYSORE - 571 134.

¶16

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER KSRTC, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION MYSORE - 571 134.

¶17

¶18

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶19

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER KSRTC, MANDYA DIVISION MANDYA - 571 401.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-4)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.10999/2013 DATED: 04/03/2014.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This intra court appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioner assailing the order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10999/2013.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶27

Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are, the appellant joined the services of the respondentCorporation as Conductor on daily wage basis in the year 1993 and he was appointed as a Trainee Conductor on 24.11.1999. Thereafter, on 19.04.2002, the appellant was appointed as Conductor on probation for a period of two years with effect from 27.12.2001. On 14.03.2003, the appellant suffered injuries while on duty, resulting in acquiring disability to perform the duties of conductor, and therefore, the appellant

¶28

¶29

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶30

was re-categorized as Office Helper in Class-IV category and was posted in Divisional Workshop, Mandya, in the year 2007. In the year 2008, the appellant applied for leave to attend his ailing wife and son. However, the application for leave was rejected. For his absence for the period from 24.06.2008 to 31.07.2008, a penalty of recovery of Rs.1,200/- from his salary in six installments was levied on the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, had given a representation for disbursing the unpaid salary and also to extend the benefit of revision of pay scale. The said representation was not considered by the respondentCorporation. In the meanwhile, after a period of nine years, his probationary period was extended for a further period of one year on the ground of his irregular attendance. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a representation for payment of arrears of salary, extend the benefit of revision of pay and also to declare his probation. On 15.11.2011, appellant's probationary period was declared with effect from 30.05.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant had approached this Court in W.P.No.10999/2013 seeking for a direction to declare his probationary period with effect from 27.12.2003 and also to issue appropriate direction to re-fix his pay attached to the post

¶31

¶32

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶33

of Conductor and to pay the arrears of salary from the date of

¶34

re-categorization of his post. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). Being aggrieved by the said order dated 04.03.2014, this intra court appeal is filed.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an individual, and therefore, in view of Section 2A of the Act, only the orders relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or the order otherwise which terminates the service of an individual workman would amount to industrial dispute, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. He submits that the industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act can be raised only through the Union and an individual cannot raise an industrial dispute under the said provision of law, and therefore, it cannot be considered as an efficacious remedy to the appellant. He submits that even after the completion of the probationary period of two years, the service of the appellant was continued, and therefore, it has to be considered that there

¶36

¶37

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶38

was a deemed declaration of appellant completing the probation period successfully, and therefore, the respondents were not justified in continuing the probation period for a further period of one year after nine years. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of FORBES GOKAK LIMITED, GOKAK VS J.H.JADHAV - 2004(7) Kar.L.J. 264 (DB), H.A.MANJUNATH VS STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANOTHER (W.A.No.4326/1999 disposed of on 12.01.2004) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRNASPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER VS S.MANJUNATH - (2000)5 SCC 250 .

¶39

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that even before the appellant had completed his initial probation period of two years, he was involved in a default case, and therefore, he was kept under suspension for a period of 144 days from 29.06.2002 to 19.11.2002. Thereafter, he remained absent for a period of 32 days from 12.02.2002 to 15.03.2022. Thereafter, the appellant had met with an accident, and therefore, he was granted leave without wages for a period of 1069 days. Therefore, the

¶40

¶41

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶42

Corporation was compelled to extend his probationary period.

¶43

She further submits that vide order dated 12.10.2011, the probationary period of the appellant was extended for one year as there was an unsatisfactory attendance of the appellant and it is under these circumstances, the probationary period was declared with effect from 30.05.2008. She, therefore, submits that the appellant had not completed his probationary period till 30.05.2008. She also submits that since disputed questions of fact are involved in the case, the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court, and therefore, the appellant is required to approach the jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal by raising a dispute.

¶44

Learned Counsel for the appellant, in reply, submits that subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, the appellant had filed W.P.Nos.11003-005/2013 & 5174/2015 seeking the relief of arrears of salary and in view of the orders passed in the said writ petitions, the relief prayed for in the present proceedings regarding payment of arrears of salary will not survive for consideration and the only prayer that would survive for consideration is regarding the declaration of

¶45

¶46

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶47

appellant's probation and his prayer made for revision of pay scale.

¶48

From the undisputable facts of the present case, it is seen that the appellant was appointed as a Trainee-Conductor with effect from 24.11.1999 and on 19.04.2002, he was appointed as Conductor on probation for a period of two years with effect from 27.12.2001. In normal course, his probation could have been extended by a further period of one year, and therefore, with effect from 27.12.2003, he would have completed his probationary period. However, from the perusal of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, it is seen that even before completion of the probation period, the appellant was involved in a default case and he was kept under suspension for nearly about five months, and thereafter, he had remained absent for a period of 32 days. Subsequently, he met with an accident, wherein he had suffered grievous injuries and leave without wages was granted to the appellant for a period of 1069 days.

¶49

It is the case of the respondent that having regard to the suspension of the appellant, his unauthorized absence and

¶50

¶51

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶52

also having regard to the fact that he had availed leave without wages, appellant cannot be considered as having completed probationary period and it is under these circumstances, according to them, his case has been considered for declaration of probation with effect from 30.05.2008.

¶53

The Division Bench of this Court in Forbes Gokak Limited's case as well as in H.A.Manjuanth's case supra has held that the remedy under Section 2(k) of the Act to an individual workman cannot be treated as a industrial dispute as the dispute relates to his personal service conditions not amounting to dismissal, retrenchment, termination, etc. Though we are in respectful agreement with the said judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court, having regard to the fact that the present case involves disputed questions of fact, no relief can be granted to the appellant in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶54

In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation's case supra, the employee had completed his initial two years of probation successfully, whereas in the present case, the respondent-Corporation has clearly stated in its statement of

¶55

¶56

WA No. 2588 of 2014

¶57

objections that in view of his suspension and unauthorized absence, the appellant had not completed his two years of probation and it has also stated that thereafter, the appellant had availed leave without wages for a period of 1069 days. Under the circumstances, even the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶58

Since the present case involves disputed questions of fact, we are of the considered view that the appellant is required to approach the jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute under the Act for the purpose of adjudicating the issue involved and seek appropriate reliefs. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we find no merit in this writ appeal and accordingly,

¶59

the same is dismissed.

¶60

SD/JUDGE

¶61

SD/JUDGE

¶62

Sri R Narayana v. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Narayana v. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hastimal Sisodia Vs the Secretary

Late Sheena Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. M. Muniswamy Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Abdul Malik Vs State of Karnataka by Its

Vinodkumar C L Vs the Home Secretary

Bengaluru Zilla Panchayat Vs State of Karnataka