Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. K v Krishnamurthy

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023WP/11431/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Labour Court award reinstating a driver dismissed for unauthorized absence. The Court held the award erroneous due to improper consideration of material and accepted the dismissal, confirming that the employee failed to report to duty despite court orders.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Labour Court dated 06.04.2022 was quashed; the order of dismissal dated 22.07.2016 is confirmed; the interim order of the Court is discharged.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.11431 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

K.V.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O KUNDARASANHALLI, KAMASAMUDRAM HOBLI, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 129.

¶12

(VIDE ORDER DATED:29.11.2023 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶20

Emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 05.06.2023. The same was returned with a shara "refused" . Hence, notice to the respondent was held sufficient vide order dated:29.11.2023 and the office was directed to print the name of respondent in the cause list and the petition was ordered to be listed on 08.12.2023.

¶21

The petition is listed today by showing the name of respondent in the cause list. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶22

3. The brief facts are these:

¶23

The respondent was appointed as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation and was placed on probation on 29.08.2009. He remained absent from duty without intimation from 03.07.2015. The Depot Manager submitted a report with regard to his unauthorized absence. On

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶25

04.08.2015, articles of charge came to be issued to the respondent alleging unauthorized absence. He did not reply to the articles of charge. The respondent was issued with a call letter calling upon him to report to duty. On 05.11.2015, the disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings by appointment of inquiry officer. The inquiry officer issued notice of inquiry on 21.02.2016. The inquiry was fixed on many times, the respondent did not attend the inquiry, hence the notice of inquiry was published in Kannada Prabha daily notifying the date of inquiry on 10.03.2016. On 10.03.2016, the respondent appeared for the inquiry, the evidence of Management witness was recorded. The workman remained absent subsequently to the inquiry, hence the inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry. On 23.04.2016, the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. On 27.04.2016, the respondent was issued with a show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not submit his reply to the show cause notice. On 22.07.2016, the respondent was dismissed from service, taking into

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶28

consideration the present conduct of remaining absent from 03.07.2015 to 22.07.2016 as also past conduct of three cases.

¶29

As things stood thus, the respondent challenged the order of dismissal by filing a petition under Section 10 R/w Section 2-A of the I.D Act before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Labour Court, Kolar in I.D.No.1/2019. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated:06.04.2022, held that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman, hence directed to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits without backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶33

The point that requires consideration is whether the

¶34

award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶35

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for the act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service.

¶36

It is pivotal to note that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that the respondent had not availed leave before remaining absent from duty and the medical documents at Exs.W1 to W8 produced by the workman are all subsequent to the charge in question. The Labour Court also concluded that the workman has failed to prove Exs.W9 and W10, however, went ahead and placed reliance on Ex.Ws.11 to W13 to come to a conclusion that the order of punishment is discriminatory in nature. This is erroneous. The Labour Court has failed to notice that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶39

case. It is perhaps well to observe that each case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the worker.

¶40

The Labour Court also erred in concluding that it is improper for the Corporation to consider the past conduct of the workman for imposing penalty without subjecting them for domestic inquiry. This finding is unsustainable in law. The reason is quite simple. The order of punishment is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-B. A perusal of the same would reveal that the disciplinary authority extenso referred to the material on record and passed the order of dismissal. It also reveals that the Corporation has made a reference to the past conduct of the respondent. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while passing the order of dismissal. Needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. Therefore, the Corporation has taken note of the past conduct of the workman while passing the order of dismissal. Taking

¶41

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶42

note of the past conduct is not the sole criteria while passing the order of dismissal. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court and has erroneously concluded that the Management has erred in taking into consideration of the past conduct of the workman while imposing the order of penalty.

¶43

Lastly, learned counsel Smt. H.R.Renuka., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the true copies of the call letters stating that pursuant to the interim order of reinstatement dated 05.06.2023, the Corporation has issued Call letters to the respondent calling upon him to come and report to duty, but there is no response from the respondent. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and appropriate order may be passed.

¶44

Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record.

¶45

I have perused the memo and also the true copies of the Call letters with utmost care. A perusal of the same would reveal that the pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 05.06.2023, the Corporation has issued Call letters on

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶48

16.09.2023 and 12.10.2023. The letter dated:16.09.2023 returned with a shara " Refused " and another letter dated:12.10.2023 returned with a shara "Addressee left without instructions" .

¶49

The past and present conduct of the respondent depicts that he is not interested in discharging his duties. Furthermore, even after the order of reinstatement by this Court, he has failed to report to duty despite receipt of Call letters from the Corporation. I may venture to say that such an employee does not deserve any sympathy much less a misplaced sympathy. In any view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The award of the Labour Court is otherwise erroneous and unjust. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶50

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:06.04.2022, passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Labour Court, Kolar in I.D.No.01/2019 vide

¶51

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44653 WP No. 11431 of 2023

¶52

Annexure-G is quashed. The order of dismissal

¶53

dated:22.07.2016 is confirmed.

¶54

9. As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶55

In view of the confirmation of the order of dismissal, the

¶56

interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

TKN,MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. K v Krishnamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. K v Krishnamurthy

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 R. Biradar Vs the Divisional Controller

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Chandrashekaraiah

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri H S Nath

Essae-Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Labour Commissioner

M/S Auma India Private Ltd. Vs the Secretary to Government

Sri Krishnappa Vs the Divisional Controller