Partly allowed

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri M Siddeshwarappa

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023WP/16665/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Labour Court award reinstating a KSRTC workman dismissed for unauthorized absence. The High Court observed the absence was proven but held the dismissal disproportionate, modifying the award for reinstation without backwages and permitting two increment deductions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; order modified to reinstate respondent with continuity of service and benefits but without backwages, allowing deduction of two increments.

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16665 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.B. ANEPPANAVAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI M SIDDESHWARAPPA S/O MARANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BEHIND DURGAMBIKA WINES KUMABA BEEDHI NITTAVALLI DAVANAGERE TOWN-583 131

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI.S.B.HALLI.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.12.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT TUMKUR, IN I.D.NO.11/2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-the Road Transport Corporation is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶22

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge at Tumkur, in I.D.No.11/2018 produced at Annexure-G.

¶23

b. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit, under the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

The respondent-workman was appointed as conductor with the Road Transport Corporation with effect from 31.07.2004 and while working at Shivamogga depot the workman without obtaining prior permission from the concerned superior officer and without submitting leave application remained unauthorizedly absent for work from 23.01.2010 to 10.05.2010 totally for a period of 107 days.

¶25

The depot manager reported his unauthorized absence to the Disciplinary Authority through his report dated 30.01.2010. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the said report, issued article of charges to the workman. Since no proper reply was

¶26

¶27

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶28

submitted to the said article of charges, the Disciplinary Authority therefore, appointed a Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the workman. Despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the workman simply stated, without producing any material evidence on record, since he was suffering from illness, he was not able to attend to work.

¶29

The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the workman was proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the report of Enquiry Officer issued 2^nd show cause notice calling upon the workman to reply to the conclusion of Enquiry Report. Since, no proper reply has been received, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from service.

¶30

On 13.10.2014, the workman after a period of nearly four years, in the year 2018 raised a dispute which was referred to adjudication by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal. The Principal

¶31

¶32

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶33

District and Session Judge, Tumkur which came to be registered in ID No.11/2018. The Principal District and Sessions Judge and Labour Court, Tumkuru by his award dated 10.12.2019 set aside the order of dismissal and directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without backwages. It is aggrieved by the same the Road Transport Corporation is before this Court.

¶34

Sri. R.B. Aneppanavar, learned counsel appearing for the Road Transport Corporation would submit that the Labour Court has erroneously taken into consideration that the workman was unwell, however there was no document produced to establish the same either with the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court. He submits that mere statement made by the workman before the Enquiry Officer has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court to come to a conclusion that the workman was unwell during the period of his absence and in furtherance thereof,

¶35

¶36

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶37

the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there is no willful absence on part of the workman which is not correct. The Labour Court ought to have appreciated that, without necessary documents being produced to establish the illness of the workman and the same not being proved, the Labour Court ought not to have set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He therefore submits that the order of Labour Court passed is to be set aside and the order of dismissal required to be confirmed.

¶38

Per contra. Sri. S.B. Halli., learned counsel appearing for the workman would submit that the reference made in the enquiry report is as regards the illness of the workman which has been taken into account by the Labour Court to set aside the order of dismissal. He further submits that the unauthorized absence for 107 days ought not to have resulted in a dismissal of the workman as the said punishment was completely disproportionate to the fault alleged against the

¶39

¶40

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶41

workman. In that background he submits that the order passed by the Labour Court is proper and correct and does not require any interference.

¶42

Heard Sri. R.B. Aneppanavar., learned counsel for the Road Transport Corporation and Sri. S.B. Halli., learned Counsel for workman. Perused the papers.

¶43

It is not in dispute that the workman was absent from 23.1.2010 to 10.05.2010 i.e., for a period of 107 days. The report of the depot manager having been made on 31.01.2010, the articles of charge were issued on 21.4.2010 during the period of absence which was received by the workman. Despite the same, the workman reported to work only on 10.05.2010. The Enquiry Officer in his report has categorically stated that despite granting sufficient opportunities and calling upon the workman to explain the reasons for absence, the workman did not choose to do so but only stated that he was unwell. In the enquiry report, it is categorically observed that no document to support the claim of

¶44

¶45

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶46

illness of the workman had been produced before the Enquiry Officer.

¶47

In that background, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of the Labour Court that the records produced by the Road Transport Corporation proved that the workman was suffering from illness is not justified, in as much as the record produced by the Road Transport Corporation relied upon the Labour Court was only the enquiry report which made a mention of the statement made by the workman that he was unwell without production of any medical evidence.

¶48

The finding of the Labour Court that the workman has submitted medical records which is the basis for the final order passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of dismissal and reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits without any backwages is therefore unsustainable.

¶49

¶50

WP No. 16665 of 2021

¶51

Exercising powers under section 11 of the Industrial Dispute Act, I am of the considered opinion that the unauthorized absence on part of workman having been established though the order of dismissal was disproportionate, the same could not have been set

¶52

aside in its entirety. Hence, I pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

¶55

ii. The order of the Labour Court is modified by directing the Road transport corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without any backwages, the second party being entitled to deduct two increments cumulatively.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri M Siddeshwarappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri M Siddeshwarappa

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 Divisional Controller Vs Sri N Narayanaswamy

Sri v J Denny Vs M/S Federal Mogul Goetze

Sri. Basavaraju Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Geetha Devi R Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. M. Lakshmikantha

Sri Rahmathulla Khan Vs the Divisional Controller &