Allowed

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Venkatesha Murthy

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023WP/3163/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition in part and modified Labour Court award granting reinstatement to workman for unauthorized absence. Court set aside back wages and increments, allowing reinstatement without continuity benefits due to false findings on absence duration.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and without consequential benefits; back wages and withholding of two annual increments set aside.

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3163 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

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3163 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, WEST DIVISION, T.T.M.C, BMTC BUS BUILDING, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 060, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RENUKA H. R., ADVOCATE) AND: VENKATESHA MURTHY, S/O. K JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO. 6, I MAIN ROAD, DATTATREYANAGARA, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU-560 085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARSHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. R. RADHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

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 IN REF NO.37/2015 DATED 16.8.2017 [ANNEXURE-D] AND ETC.

¶12

¶13

WP No. 3163 of 2018

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The respondent workman when working as a conductor in the petitioner-Corporation was issued with Articles of charges as to why domestic enquiry should not be conducted for unauthorized absence from 1.3.2010.

¶17

Respondent-Workman did not choose to reply to the Articles of charges, and thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted, and Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the workman was proved.

¶18

The petitioner-Corporation after issuing show cause notice dismissed the workman from the service against which, the workman raised a dispute under Section 10 r/w Sec.2A of the amended Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be fair and proper.

¶19

The respondent-workman examined himself as WW.1 and marked documents at Exs.W.1 to W.7, and on the other hand, the petitioner-Corporation marked documents at Exs.M.1 to M.20. The Labour Court after examining the evidence on record held that the charge against the workman was proved and in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act, modified the order of dismissal into reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service with all

¶20

¶21

WP No. 3163 of 2018

¶22

consequential benefits by withholding two annual increments and with 50% back wages.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that the charge against the workman having been proved and also having recorded the fact that the workman had remained unauthorizedly absent on 15 occasions earlier, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable in law.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that, the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges, and the Labour Court taking into account the same, and in exercising power under Section 11-A of the Act, has rightly passed the impugned award and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶25

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

¶26

The Labour Court recorded the finding that the workman had remained absent only for a period of eight days which is factually incorrect, and evidence on record establishes that the workman remained unauthorizedly absent from 1.3.2010 till 9.7.2010, i.e., the date of issuance of Articles of charges.

¶27

It is also undisputed fact that the workman had on 15 occasions earlier had remained unauthorizedly absent. Hence, the impugned punishment imposed by the Labour Court

¶28

¶29

WP No. 3163 of 2018

¶30

is on the lower side having regard to the fact that the workman had remained unauthorizedly absent from 1.3.2010 to 9.7.2010, and also remained unauthorizedly absent on 15 occasions earlier. Hence, to this extent, the impugned award requires to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶33

ii) The impugned award dated 16.8.2017 passed in Ref.No.37/2015 by the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is hereby modified and consequently, the claim petition under Section 10 r/w Sec.2A of the amended Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part.

¶34

(iii) The respondent-workman is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service, but without back wages and without consequential benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement.

¶35

(iv) The respondent-workman is not entitled for back wages and the impugned award withholding of 2 annual increments with cumulative effect is hereby set aside.

¶36

Hence, to this extent, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court stands modified.

JUDGE

Sd/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Venkatesha Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Venkatesha Murthy

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

Shankar Nayak H S Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Manu L Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Smt D R Poornima Vs Smt Leelamma