The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 against a Labour Court award. The petitioner had been dismissed from service following a domestic inquiry. The High Court held the rejection by the Labour Court was just and proper, finding the Writ Petition to be devoid of merit.
The Writ Petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:41979 WP No. 25024 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.25024 OF 2018 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI K.R.RAMESH S/O SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O KOLIGERE VILLAGE & POST, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 204.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.R.BALARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., NO.1, THALAGHATTAPURA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. J.KANIKARAJ., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:41979 WP No. 25024 of 2018
ORDER
Sri.V.R.Balaraj., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ravishankar., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.J.Kanikaraj., for the respondent have appeared in person.
2. The brief facts are these:
The petitioner was appointed as Post Printing Operator in the office of the respondent on 01.08.2003. He was discharging his duties honestly and diligently and he had flawless record of service. When the matter stood thus, he was constrained to be on leave due to his ill-health and he was under treatment in ESIC Hospital, which had given him Medical Certificate for the period from 08.03.2011 to 26.05.2011. He could not report for duty on 27.05.2011 and hence he extended the medical leave from 27.05.2011 to 12.06.2011. He submitted a Medical Certificate for the extended spell from Shivam Vishwa Multi Specialty Hospital. The Management insisted that he should produce the Medical Certificate only from ESIC Hospital for the extended spell of leave as against the Medical Certificate obtained from the Private Hospital.
It is said that the Management was utterly wrong in insisting for production of Medical Certificate from ESIC Hospital, where the workman had not taken treatment from 27.05.2011 onwards. The ESIC Hospital also would not issue the Medical Certificate for the above period, since the workman had not taken treatment at ESIC Hospital. Hence, he expressed his inability to get such Medical Certificate from ESIC Hospital. The Management refused to permit him to report to duty from 13.06.2011 onwards for non-production of Medical Certificate from ESIC Hospital. However, on 20.06.2011, the Management called upon the petitioner to report to duty and posted him to work in Printing Department. The petitioner had no experience in the Printing Department work and therefore, he requested the Management to post him back to Post Printing Department. It is at this stage, the Management issued a Letter on 07.07.2011 stating that since he was involved in filing legal cases against the Company regarding the property, the Management decided to cease his employment till the case was resolved.
The workman filed Conciliation Petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru seeking their
NC: 2023:KHC:41979 WP No. 25024 of 2018
intervention to get him justice. The Management filed counter statement, wherein it had stated that they would withdraw the order of termination and they would hold a departmental inquiry into the acts of misconduct alleged against the workman. The charge sheet was issued on 16.07.2012 and certain allegations were made against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations by way of reply dated:20.07.2012. Thereafter, the Management initiated domestic inquiry by appointing one Mr.A.R.Ravi as Inquiry Officer and Smt.Umadevi, Manager (HR & Admin) as the Presenting Officer. The inquiry was held and the charges were held to be proved. The Management dismissed the petitioner from service on 02.08.2013.
The petitioner raised a dispute before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.50/2013. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated:06.03.2018 dismissed the claim petition. 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:41979 WP No. 25024 of 2018
The issue revolves around non-production of Medical Certificate from ESIC Hospital. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that due to illness, he was under treatment in ESIC Hospital from 08.03.2011 to 26.05.2011, as he did not recover from his illness, he could not report to duty on 27.05.2011. Therefore, he was compelled to extend the medical leave from 27.05.2011 to 12.06.2011. It is relevant to note that for the extended spell, he obtained a medical certificate from Shivam Vishwa Multi-Specialty Hospital.
NC: 2023:KHC:41979 WP No. 25024 of 2018
However, the Management insisted him to obtain a Medical Certificate from ESIC Hospital. The petitioner did not furnish the medical certificate from ESIC Hospital.
It is pivotal to note that the petitioner took treatment in ESIC Hospital and he was required to submit a medical certificate from the ESIC Hospital. Except producing a certificate issued by Shivam Vishwa Multi-Specialty Hospital, Lingarajapura, Bengaluru, the petitioner did not furnish any prescription slips or bills. Furthermore, the Labour Court took note of the fact that the petitioner is gain fully employed in Nandhi Toyoto Company and continue to be an employee in the said company since 01.07.2014. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the petitioner.
The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and rejected the claim petition. In my view, the rejection of the claim petition is just and proper. I find no reasons to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court. The petition is devoid of merits.
NC: 2023:KHC:41979 WP No. 25024 of 2018
For the reasons stated above, I find no grounds to
interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition
is devoid of merits and it is liable to be rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of the Labour Court finding charges proved and dismissing the petitioner's claim requires interference.
Whether the petitioner’s Writ Petition challenging the Labour Court award is devoid of merit.
SRI K.R.RAMESH
M/S SJS ENTERPRISES PVT LTD
JYOTI MULIMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
