Partly allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri K Krishna Raju

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/15934/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSCRTC challenged a Labour Court award reinstating an absent driver. The High Court held the dismissal was disproportionate; it modified the award to grant reinstatement without back wages but deducted one annual increment for the period of absence where no proof of fitness or request for lighter work was shown.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner implicated award modified; respondent entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages or consequential benefits, subject to deduction of one annual increment for the

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri K Krishna… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 15934 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 15934 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICE, K.S.R.T.C., BANGALORE - 027.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. K. KRISHNA RAJU, S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MARANAGERI COLONY, NEAR HALLI MARA, TIPTUR TOWN - 572 201, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D. NO. 78/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

WP No. 15934 of 2015

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The respondent who was working as driver in the petitioner-Corporation was dismissed from the service on the ground that he had remained unauthorisedly absent from 17.11.2012 to 22.03.2013. The respondent-Workman filed a claim petition under Section 10 (4) A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶19

The Tribunal after examining the evidence on record held that the workman had shown sufficient cause to remain absent for the said period, and accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits without backwages. Hence, this petition.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

The labour Court relied upon Ex.W1 to W5 which indicates that the petitioner had undergone knee surgery in the year 2007, and held that the workman was not fit to hold steering of the bus on that day and he should be assigned with lighter work. The workman has not produced documents in the form of medical certificates to substantiate there was sufficient cause for him to remain absent for the said period. No documents have been produced by the workman requesting the Corporation to assign him with lighter work. In the absence of any materials, the findings recorded by the Labour Court is not

¶22

¶23

WP No. 15934 of 2015

¶24

sustainable in law. The fact that the workman had remained absent for the said period of four months. Though the charge that the workman had remained un-authorizedly absent for a period of four months is proved, however, the order of dismissal is not proportionate of the proved charge and by invoking Section 11A of the I D Act, the order of dismissal requires to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i. Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶27

ii. The impugned award dated 25.10.2014 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.78/2013 is hereby modified.

¶28

iii. The Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service without back wages and he is not entitled for consequential benefits from the date of dismissal i.e.,09.12.2013 till passing of the impugned award i.e., 25.10.2014 by withholding one annual increment.

¶29

To this extent the impugned award stands modified.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

RKA

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

The Divisional Controller v. Sri K Krishna Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri K Krishna Raju

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

R. Parvathamma Vs Chief Engineer

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

General Secretary Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Smt. Annamma Since Dead by Lrs Vs Tahasildar

Sri H v Nagaraj Vs the Regional Transport Authority