Quashed

Shankar Nayak H S v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023WP/27659/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that dismissing a KSRTC conductor for 54 days of unauthorized absence was disproportionate. The award was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated without continuity of service or back wages, with a warning against future absenteeism.

What did the court decide?

Award quashed; petitioner reinstated without continuity of service or back wages. Workman to be reinstated within two months. Corporation warned against future absenteeism.

Shankar Nayak H S Vs the Divisional Controller — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 27659 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27659 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHANKAR NAYAK H S S/O SWAMY NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT HIREKYATHANA HALLI AT AND POST, HUNASURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 134.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU-570 015.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU IN REFERENCE NO.3/2017 DATED 18.09.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 27659 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed challenging the award dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in Ref No.03/2017, by which, the claim petition filed under Section 10(1) (c) & (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the workman challenging the order of dismissal was dismissed.

¶21

The petitioner-workman when working as a conductor in the respondent-Corporation was issued with Articles of charges to show cause as to why domestic enquiry should not be conducted for remaining unauthorizedly absent from 25.02.2013 to 18.04.2013.

¶22

The enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry submitted a report stating that the charge against the petitioner-workman was proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing the petitioner-workman from the service against which, petitioner-workman raised dispute under Section 10(1) (c) & (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The domestic enquiry conducted was held to be fair and proper.

¶23

The petitioner-workman to prove his case examined himself as WW.1 and marked documents at Exs.W.1 to W7. On the other hand, the respondent-Corporation marked documents at Exs.M1 to M13. The Labour Court after examining the

¶24

¶25

WP No. 27659 of 2018

¶26

evidence on record held that the charge against the workman is proved and consequently dismissed the claim petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges since, the workman had remained unauthorizedly absent only for a period of 54 days.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner-workman had remained unauthorizedly absent on 7 occasions earlier and during the pendency of the enquiry he remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 35 days and 7 months respectively. Hence, the Labour Court taking into account the same has rightly passed the award and the same does not warrant interference.

¶29

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

The charges against the petitioner-workman was that he remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 54 days' and during the pendency of the domestic enquiry, the petitioner-workman without showing sufficient cause had remained unauthorizedly absent on two occasions i.e. for 35 days and 7 months respectively. Further there was a delay of more then 3 years in raising the dispute. Be that as it may, the petitioner-workman was appointed in the respondentCorporation on 27.11.2006, and as on today he is aged about

¶31

¶32

WP No. 27659 of 2018

¶33

37 years and is left with more than 20 years of service. If the order of dismissal is confirmed, the petitioner-workman and his family members will be deprived of their only source of income and were put to great hardship.

¶34

In exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is held that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges, since, the petitioner-workman had remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 54 days. Hence, to this extent, the impugned order of dismissal requires to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶37

ii) The award dated 18.09.2017 passed in Ref.No.03/2017 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mysuru is hereby quashed and consequently, the claim petition under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part.

¶38

(iii) The respondent - Corporation is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service without continuity of service and consequently benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement and without backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of actual reinstatement. The said exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 27659 of 2018

¶41

iv) It is made clear that, in the event, the petitionerworkman remains unauthorizedly absent without any sufficient cause, the respondent-Corporation shall proceed against the workman in accordance with law without showing any leniency.

¶42

v) Services rendered by the workman before the order of dismissal shall be reckoned for all other benefits.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Shankar Nayak H S v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Nayak H S 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Umesha. H. C. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Hanumantharaju K M Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Venkatesha Murthy

Sri Manu L Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Smt D R Poornima Vs Smt Leelamma