Partly allowed

Sri v. Manjunath v the Division Controller

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023WP/25852/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal due to unauthorized absence. High Court found absence proved but punishment disproportionate. Under Section 11-A, Court quashed dismissal, ordered reinstatement with service continuity, but denied backwages and other benefits.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement of workman into service with continuity of service for terminal benefits; no backwages or other consequential benefits.

Sri v Manjunath Vs the Division Controller — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 25852 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.25852 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI V MANJUNATH S/O VENKATESH P, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SOMASUNDARA PALYA, AGARA POST, BENGALURU-560 034.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DIVISION CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD OF THE THIRD ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - WP No. 25852 of 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner when working as Junior Assistant was

¶22

issued with article of charge to show cause as to why enquiry should not be initiated by imposing minor penalty for his unauthorised absence from 18.03.2016.

¶23

The workman having not replied to the article of charge, the Assistant Administrative Officer, Competent Authority to impose minor penalty, appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge against the workman under Regulation 23(4) of the KSRTC Servants' (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations.

¶24

The workman having not appeared before the

¶25

Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer on the basis of material on record proceeded to submit a report stating that charge against the workman was proved. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing second show cause notice to the workman dismissed the workman from service. Against which, the petitioner - Workman raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes

¶26

¶27

WP No. 25852 of 2018

¶28

Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The enquiry conducted by the Corporation was held to be not fair and proper.

¶29

The workman examined himself as W.W.1 and marked documents at Exs. W1 to W6 and the Corporation examined two witnesses as M.W.2 and M.W.3 and marked documents at Exs. M24 to M28.

¶30

The Labour Court after examining the evidence on record, held that the workman failed to prove his case that he remained absent due to ill-health and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner - workman submits that the Labour Court having regard to the gravity of charge, ought to have exercised the power under Section 11-A of the Act and accordingly, reduced the quantum of punishment. He submits that the Labour Court having not exercised the said power, the impugned order is contrary to Section 11-A of the Act.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 25852 of 2018

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶35

Corporation submits that the charge against the workman having been proved, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶36

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

Admittedly, the workman has not produced any document to substantiate his claim that he remained absent due to ill-health, and in the absence of any material produced by him, the Labour Court was justified in holding that the charge against the workman was proved.

¶38

Section 11-A of the Act deals with the powers of the Labour Courts, and where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court and in the course of the adjudication proceedings, if the Labour Court is satisfied

¶39

¶40

WP No. 25852 of 2018

¶41

that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions.

¶42

In the instant case, the Labour Court has not examined whether the quantum of punishment imposed against the workman is proportionate to the gravity of charge, and without exercising the said power, the Labour Court has passed the award. The petitioner is aged 43 years, and is left with 17 years of service, and if the order of dismissal is confirmed, he and his family members would be put to irreparable loss and petitioner would be deprived of his very source of livelihood. The unauthorized absence is from 18.03.2016 and the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charge.

¶43

In exercise of the power under Section 11-A of the Act, it would be appropriate to modify the order of punishment. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

¶45

WP No. 25852 of 2018

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a. The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶48

b. The impugned award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the III Additional Labour Court , Bangalore, in I.D. No. 14/2017 is hereby modified.

¶49

c. The respondent - Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits. However, the workman is not entitled to other consequential benefits and backwages flowing from the order of reinstatement.

¶50

d. The Corporation to reinstate the petitioner - Workman into service within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sri v. Manjunath v the Division Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Manjunath v the Division Controller

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

Bata India Limited Vs President

Karnataka State Road Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Dr Shobha M v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mallesha Vs the Manager

Suryodaya Mill Workers Union Vs the Management of Suryodaya Industries Limited

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs K M Manjegowda