Dismissed

The Management of Nwkrtc, v. Janardan Nair S/O Krishnan Nair

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2023WP/146893/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a corporation challenging an Industrial Tribunal order. The Tribunal had quashed a stand-your-order as it was imposed without a show cause notice. The High Court found the Tribunal was right in holding the action violated principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of 11.09.2019 upheld.

The Management of Nwkrtc, Vs Janardan Nair… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 146893 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 146893 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, U.K. DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, U.K. DIVISION, SIRSI, TEH PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P. N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

JANARDAN NAIR S/O KRISHNAN NAIR AGE:64 YEARS,OCC: RETIRED DRIVER, R/O: H.NO.161, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, HIBBALLI ROAD,SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED

¶15

¶16

WP No. 146893 of 2020

¶17

11/09/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBBALLI IN I.D. NO.140/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE I.D. NO.140/2016.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri. Prakash N. Hosamane, learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioner.

¶22

In this petition, the respondent-corporation has challenged the order dated 11.09.2019 passed in I.D.No.140/2016 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, at Hubballi.

¶23

The relevant fact for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the respondent herein has filed ID No.140/2016, challenging the reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further stated that, the respondent while working as Driver in the respondent-management, without issuing the articles of

¶24

¶25

WP No. 146893 of 2020

¶26

charge, imposed major punishment and therefore, it is the

¶27

case of the respondent herein before the Industrial Tribunal that the said reference should be interfered with, as non est . In this regard, the petitioner-corporation has entered appearance and filed objection. The respondentmanagement has examined two witnesses as M.W.1 and M.W.2 and produced three documents and the same are marked as Ex.M.1, Ex.M.2 and Ex.M.3. The respondentclaimant/employee was examined as W.W.1 and he has not produced any documents. The Industrial Tribunal having taken note of the fact that, the memo of charge was not issued to the respondent-employee by its order dated 11.09.2019, dispose of the reference and as such,

¶28

set aside the impugned order of punishment dated 06.04.2013 in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-corporation has preferred this writ petition.

¶29

Sri. Prakash N. Hosamane, learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the petitioner would contend that, the Industrial Tribunal has not properly appreciated the

¶31

¶32

WP No. 146893 of 2020

¶33

evidence and the material on record produced by the petitioner-corporation and accordingly, he submitted that, the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, particularly paragraph No.16 of the impugned order. It is stated that, the petitioner-corporation has imposed punishment to the respondent-employee without issuing articles of charge or show cause notice and the same is evident at paragraph No.16 of the impugned award and same is contrary to principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that, the petitioner-corporation has imposed punishment in favour of the respondent-employee without issuing articles of charge and therefore, I do not find any

¶35

¶36

WP No. 146893 of 2020

¶37

merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioner.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

SVH

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

The Management of Nwkrtc, v. Janardan Nair S/O Krishnan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nwkrtc, v. Janardan Nair S/O Krishnan Nair

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

Sri M G Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Uday Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangawwa W/O Nagappa Kamble, Vs the Commanding Officer

Basavva W/O Subhash Madiwalar Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghavendra S/O Virupakshappa Halavi Vs the State of Karnataka