Allowed

Karnataka State v. v.K.Shivamalla

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023WP/19825/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Labour Court's order reinstating a trainee employee removed for unauthorized absence. The Court held the reinstatement was erroneous because the Labour Court relied solely on a procedural defect regarding approval under the Industrial Disputes Act, which is inapplicable to a trainee.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed; the order dated 04.09.2013 by the III Addl. Labour Court is quashed; the order of punishment dated 04.03.2011 is confirmed.

Karnataka State Vs v.K.Shivamalla — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39148 WP No. 19825 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.19825 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RAMANAGARA DIVISION, KIMCO BUILDING, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

V.K.SHIVAMALLA S/O THIMMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KALLALI KANAKPURA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, KANAKPURA - 562 117.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. L.SHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶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 FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:39148 WP No. 19825 of 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.L.Shekar., learned counsel for the respondent, have appeared in person.

¶20

The brief facts are these:

¶21

The respondent was Helper-B in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained unauthorisedly absence from duty from 04.06.2007 without prior permission and without submitting leave application. A report dated:05.02.2009 came to be submitted by the Depot Manager reporting the unauthorized absence of the respondent. He was thus issued with a show cause notice dated:04.06.2007 calling upon him to

¶22

report to duty and also for his unauthorized absence. He submitted his reply to the show cause notice. He was subjected to inquiry, the inquiry officer after holding an inquiry submitted her findings holding that the charge are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of inquiry officer, having regard to the fact that delinquent had remained absent from duty for a period of seven hundred and eleven days, and

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:39148 WP No. 19825 of 2014

¶25

vide order dated:04.03.2011, his name was removed from the list of trainee employees.

¶26

Aggrieved by the order of the removal, the respondent sought reference and the same was referred to the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No.67/2012. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide order dated:04.09.2013 set-aside the order of removal by directing reinstatement with full back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service with all other consequential benefits. It is this Order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39148 WP No. 19825 of 2014

¶30

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that on account of misconduct, the respondent came under a disciplinary proceedings. He was visited with an order of punishment. He raised the dispute. The Labour Court interfered with the order of punishment solely on the ground that the Corporation has not made any efforts to file an approval application as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶31

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments submits that the respondent was only a trainee and hence, he is not a workman. Therefore, the reasoning of the Labour Court that the Corporation has not taken approval as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D Act is erroneous.

¶32

Submission is noted with utmost care. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was only a trainee and he is not a workman under the I.D Act. I have perused the Order of the Labour Court with utmost care. The Labour Court chose to setaside the order of punishment solely on the ground that the

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39148 WP No. 19825 of 2014

¶34

Corporation has not taken approval as required under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D Act. The reason is untenable. As already noted above, the respondent is only a trainee. On account of misconduct, he was visited with an order of punishment and his name was removed from the list of trainee employees. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court and has erroneously set-aside the order of punishment. This is totally unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the Order of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.

¶35

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Order dated 04.09.2013 in Reference No.67/2012 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru vide Annexure-E is quashed. The order of punishment dated:04.03.2011 is confirmed.

¶36

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶37

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

Karnataka State v. v.K.Shivamalla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State v. v.K.Shivamalla

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.S.Narayanaswamy Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour

Karnataka State Road Vs S Mallesha

Mr. Bhouthis Monthero Vs the Assistant Director

B.S. Praveen Kumar Vs the Kempe Gowda Institute of

Vishwas S Khebude Vs the Director (a and Hr)