Dismissed

Shahanaz Begum v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/4130/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging an award that denied continuity of service and back wages upon reinstatement was dismissed. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in J K Synthetics Ltd. to hold that such benefits do not automatically follow reinstatement when misconduct is proved and punishment is only reduced.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be reinstated but not entitled to continuity of service from date of dismissal; prior service reckoned for all purposes.

Shahanaz Begum Vs the Divisional Controller — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4130 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAHANAZ BEGUM, D/O HUSSAIN SHARIFF, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT C/O MURTHUJA SHARIEFF, 8TH CROSS, SADASHIVA NAGAR, TUMKUR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-575 201.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

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

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS +FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 12.6.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR IN I.D.NO.3/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, BACK WAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner when working as Junior Assistant in the respondent - Corporation was issued with article of charges for having remained unauthorisedly absent from

¶19

¶20

WP No. 4130 of 2019

¶21

16.1.2014 till the issuance of article of charges. The petitioner - workman having not reported to duty, and also not having participated in the domestic enquiry, the Corporation passed an order dismissing the workman from service, against which, she raised a dispute under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be not fair and proper. Thereafter, she examined herself as PW1 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16 and the Corporation to prove its case examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R11.

¶22

The learned District Judge, after examining the evidence on record, has held the charge against the petitioner is proved, and after having held that the charge against the petitioner was proved, however, held that the punishment imposed was not proportionate to the gravity of charge, and accordingly directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service without any continuity of service and back wages, against which, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, having regard to the gravity of charge, the learned District Judge has committed an error in not granting continuity of service. Hence, he submits that the award passed by the learned District Judge requires to be

¶24

¶25

WP No. 4130 of 2019

¶26

modified by directing the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation submits that, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In support, she places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J K Synthetics Ltd. -vs- K P Agrawal and another (2007) 2 SCC 433).

¶28

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision at para-18 has held as follows:

¶30

19…..When the punishment is reduced by a court as being excessive, there can be either a direction for reinstatement or a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if reinstatement is directed, it can be effective either prospectively from the date of such substitution of punishment (in which event, there is no continuity of service) or retrospectively, from the date on which the penalty of termination was imposed (in which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to continuity of service). What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is

¶31

¶32

WP No. 4130 of 2019

¶33

that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc."

¶34

In view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the petitioner though is directed to be reinstated into service on imposition of lesser punishment, is not entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement of service. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Writ petition is dismissed.

¶37

ii) It is made clear that the workman is not entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e. dated 13.10.2014 till the passing of the impugned order i.e. dated 12.6.2018.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 4130 of 2019

¶40

iii) The service rendered prior to the date of dismissal is reckoned for all purposes.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

BKM

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Shahanaz Begum v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahanaz Begum 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar. C Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M/S Nanjappa Trust Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Panchayat Development Officer Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Minimum

Sri K N Nagaraj Vs Sri S Padhmanabhan

Wonderla Karmika Sangha Vs the Management

Sri G Nagaraja Vs the Divisional Controller