Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023WP/14309/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a Labour Court award that directed reinstatement of a respondent removed for unauthorized absence. The High Court quashed the award, overriding the tribunal's reliance on another corporation's punishment records, and confirmed the removal order.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge (I.D.No.5/2015) is quashed; the order of removal dated 15.06.2015 is confirmed.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43803 WP No. 14309 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.14309 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RAMANAGAR DIVISION, RAMANAGAR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MAHESH KUMAR S/O SHARANA GOWDA UJARATHI, ADULT, YADAGIRI VILLAGE AND POST, KEMBAVI HOBLI, SURAPURA TALUK, YADHAGIRI DISTRICT - 585 201.

¶13

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:43803 WP No. 14309 of 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

Emergent notice to respondent was ordered on 17.03.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served. 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 cum Conductor, was placed on job training for a period of two years vide order dated:13.05.2013. As per the terms and conditions of this order, the service rendered by the respondent as a Trainee would not be considered as a part of the service and the confirmation of service of the employee would be subject to his successful completion of training period.

¶24

The respondent was placed on job training with effect from 13.05.2013. He remained absent from 30.08.2014 without prior intimation and without obtaining prior permission from his superior officer. A report dated:06.09.2014 was submitted by

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43803 WP No. 14309 of 2020

¶26

the Depot Manager as regard to the absence of the respondent. Hence, he was issued with show cause notice on 13.11.2014 alleging unauthorized absence from duty from 30.08.2014 onwards. The respondent did not submit his reply to the show cause notice. The respondent eversince the date on which he reported to duty as Job Trainee was irregular in attendance. He remained unauthorizedly absent in the present case from 30.08.2014 to 05.03.2015 (188 days). The respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the charge of unauthorized absence. He appeared before the inquiry officer and admitted the charges. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. He was issued with second show cause notice on 09.05.2015 along with the findings of the inquiry officer. He did not submit his reply. Taking into consideration the present misconduct coupled with the past five cases, the name of the respondent was removed from the list of Trainee employees vide order dated:15.06.2015.

¶27

Aggrieved by the order of removal, the respondent filed a claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:43803 WP No. 14309 of 2020

¶30

Ramanagara in I.D.No.05/2015. The Court vide award dated:24.07.2019 allowed the claim petition and directed reinstatement of respondent as Trainee Driver cum Conductor without any financial benefits. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Court requires interference.

¶33

The facts are sufficiently stated and do note require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for the act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., his name was removed from the list of Trainee employees.

¶34

The issue revolves around the misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence from 30.08.2014 to 05.03.2015. The

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43803 WP No. 14309 of 2020

¶36

misconduct committed by the respondent was upheld by the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court placed reliance on the order of punishments at Ex.W1 and W2 to come to a conclusion that the order of punishment passed against respondent is discriminatory and disproportionate. This is incorrect. The orders of punishment at Ex.W1 and W2 pertains to different Corporation and the said orders are not binding on this Corporation. The facts and circumstances that were involved in those orders are not known to the Corporation. Hence, placing reliance on the orders of punishment passed by the different Corporation is totally unsustainable in law.

¶37

It is pivotal to note that the respondent was placed on job training. He was required to discharge work satisfactorily in terms of the order of appointment. He has flouted the terms and conditions of the appointment order, in as much as during the tenure of his service as a Trainee employee. He remained absent from duty for total period of 550 days and in the present case, the absence was for a period of 188 days. He did not place on record any acceptable material before the inquiry officer, instead he admitted the charges. Hence, in view of proved misconduct, the Labour Court committed an error in

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43803 WP No. 14309 of 2020

¶39

interfering with the order of removal. Furthermore, when the guilty is admitted by the delinquent and the same has also been accepted by the Court, hence modifying the order of punishment by exercising power under Section 11A is unsustainable in law.

¶40

For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶41

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:24.07.2019 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in I.D.No.5/2015 vide Annexure-E is quashed. The order of removal dated:15.06.2015 is confirmed.

¶42

9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar

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

The Chief Security & Vigilance Officer Vs Sri Hamsagiri C M

Sharan Desai Ms Usa Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs N Manjunath

Divisional Controller Vs Sri Mukunda H R

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri H S Nath

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri H S Nath