Remanded

M Paramesh v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023WP/26557/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the challenge to an Industrial Tribunal's award rejecting a disciplinary reference. The Court held that after holding the domestic inquiry improper, the Tribunal failed to grant parties an opportunity to lead evidence on merits, thus setting aside the award.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari ordered to quash the award dated 22.10.2012. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and opportunity to lead evidence.

M Paramesh Vs the Divisional Controller — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39384 WP No. 26557 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 26557 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M.PARAMESH S/O MEGYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, R/O KAMMARAGHATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH COURT OF THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39384 WP No. 26557 of 2014

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Sri.Sundaresh.H.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent has appeared in person.

¶19

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with Articles of charge alleging that on 25.06.2001, while he was on duty in the bus bearing No.F 756 that was playing on the route from Somarpet to Mysore, the bus was checked at Mariya Nagar and it was found that, out of fifty-one passengers, the petitioner had neither issued tickets nor collected fare in respect of seventeen passengers, the fare of Rs.3/- (Rupees Three only) each traveling from Banavar to Mariya Nagar and thereby committed a misconduct. He came under a disciplinary proceedings and he was visited with an order of punishment withholding five annual increment permanently.

¶20

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.108/2008. On the basis of the

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39384 WP No. 26557 of 2014

¶22

preliminary issue, the Corporation examined its official as MW1 and got marked 22 documents as Exs.M1 to M22 and closed its evidence. The Tribunal vide order dated:11.04.2012 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The case was posted for evidence of the Corporation on merits. The Corporation remained absent so also the workman. The Tribunal took note of the absence of the parties and on the basis of the records, adjudicated the dispute and condoned the delay and rejected the reference vide Award dated:22.10.2012. 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.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent has urged

¶24

several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶25

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the Tribunal has held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper.

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39384 WP No. 26557 of 2014

¶27

The matter was posted for evidence on the merits of the case. However, the Corporation and the workman failed to adduce evidence on the merits of the case. Hence, she submits that an opportunity may be accorded to the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the case.

¶28

A perusal of the Award would reveal that the

¶29

Tribunal vide order dated:12.10.2012 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. It is pivotal to note that the case was posted for evidence of the Corporation but, none appeared on behalf of the Corporation to lead evidence on the merits of the case. It is not in dispute that the workman also did not lead evidence on the merits of the case. In my view, the Tribunal ought to have given one more opportunity for the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the case. However, it went ahead and adjudicated the dispute on the material evidence that was placed on record

¶30

and rejected the reference. This is incorrect. The law is well settled, once the domestic inquiry is held as not fair and proper, sufficient and reasonable opportunity should be

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:39384 WP No. 26557 of 2014

¶33

accorded to the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the case.

¶34

In the present case, sufficient and reasonable opportunity is not accorded to the parties. Hence, matter requires a remand. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to set-aside the Award holding that the Tribunal should accord an opportunity for the petitioner and the respondent to lead evidence on the merits of the case. It is needless to say that the order passed on the validity of the domestic inquiry is unaltered. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside and the matter requires a remand.

¶35

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:22.10.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.108/2008 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶36

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded .

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:39384 WP No. 26557 of 2014

¶39

Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 04.12.2023 without awaiting any notice. All the contentions of the parties are kept open including delay.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

M Paramesh v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Paramesh v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka State Vs v.K.Shivamalla

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

Vishwas S Khebude Vs the Director (a and Hr)

M/S. Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M G Mohammad Tabib Vs the Director (P & E)

K N Venkatesh Vs the Divisional Controller