Allowed

The Chief Accounts Officer & v. Sri. Venkatesh

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023WP/25571/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an Industrial Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to modify a minor penalty imposed by a managerial disciplinary authority. The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's award was allowed, quashing the award and confirming the original punishment order.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 03.11.2017 is quashed. The order of punishment dated 24.11.2007 is confirmed. The writ petition is allowed.

The Chief Accounts Officer & Vs Sri… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39812 WP No. 25571 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.25571 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER & FINANCIAL ADVISOR & DIVISIONAL AUTHORITY, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 27. HEREIN REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, C/O GENERAL SECRETARY, AITUC, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.ANANDA N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:39812 WP No. 25571 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Sri.Ananda.N., learned counsel for the respondent has appeared through video conferencing.

¶21

The brief facts are these:

¶22

The respondent was working as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly from duties from 27.02.2002 onwards. In this regard, the disciplinary authority initiated inquiry proceedings. A detailed inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 24.11.2007 reducing the basic pay of the respondent by two stages with cumulative effect and treated the absence period from 27.02.2002 to 26.09.2003 as absent.

¶23

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute and the Government referred the same for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.208/2009. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation as fair and proper. The Tribunal

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:39812 WP No. 25571 of 2018

¶26

vide Award dated:03.11.2017 set-aside the order of the punishment. 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around the act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence. Suffice it to note that, the delinquent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and he was visited with an order of minor penalty. He replied to the articles of charge stating that on 08.10.1994, he sustained injuries on account of Hindu Muslim agitation, hence he was under treatment. However, in the claim statement, he states

¶30

that when he was working in Depot No.15 as a Driver, he was bedridden with serious illness and applied leave on the medical

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39812 WP No. 25571 of 2018

¶32

grounds on 27.02.2002. It is also contended that Depot Manager received the leave application and sanctioned leave. He contended that he did not recover from the serious illness and hence, he requested for extension of leave. The reasons accorded by the respondent for remaining absent are contradictory. As already noted above, in the reply to the Articles of charge, he has specifically contended that he sustained injuries in the year 1994. But in the claim statement he takes a different stand. What is required to be considered is whether the injuries alleged to have been sustained on account of Hindu Muslim agitation back in the year 1994 could become a reason for his unauthorized absence in the year 2002. The answer is no. It is hard to believe that the alleged injuries sustained by him back in the year 1994 would be a cause for his absence in the year 2002. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has erroneously set-aside the minor punishment.

¶33

In my opinion, the Tribunal has erred in modifying the minor penalty. This modification is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to modify the minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into service

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39812 WP No. 25571 of 2018

¶35

the aspect of minor penalty. Furthermore, the Managerial decision to impose minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified by the Tribunal. Hence, the modification of the order of punishment is unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶36

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:03.11.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Reference No.208/2009 vide Annexure-B is quashed. The order of punishment dated:24.11.2007 is confirmed.

¶37

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶38

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

The Chief Accounts Officer & v. Sri. Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Accounts Officer & v. Sri. Venkatesh

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, Ksrtc Vs Sri. K N Balachandra Rai

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. Basavaraju

Sri. Deviprasad K K Vs the Management of

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B Ravindrakumar

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs a v Bhuvaneshwar Kumar

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Bettarayaswamy M R