Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Annaraya @ Annappa

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023WP/41638/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Labour Court award that reinstated a driver cum conductor dismissed for unexplained absence. The petitioner successfully argued that the employee's failure to report despite call letters negated sympathy, and the reinstatement order was discharged.

What did the court decide?

The award dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Labour Court is quashed; the order of dismissal dated 28.12.2016 is confirmed; the interim order of reinstatement is discharged.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.41638 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ANNARAYA @ ANNAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O GOURBI TALUK, AFZALAPUR, KALBURGI DISTRICT - 585 301.

¶15

(RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶23

Counsel Sri.V.S.Naik., submits that though he accepted notice on behalf of respondent on 20.02.2023, he has no instruction to appear on behalf of the respondent. Counsel therefore, submits that office may be directed to delete his name as counsel appearing for respondent.

¶24

Submission is noted.

¶25

Office is directed to delete the name of Sri.V.S.Naik., as counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the respondent is served. He has neither made any efforts to engage counsel nor appeared before the Court either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, the petition is heard finally.

¶27

2. The brief facts are these:

¶28

The respondent is a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶30

duty without intimation from 07.11.2015. A report was submitted by the Depot Manager with regard to his unauthorized absence. He was issued with Call letter calling upon him to report to duty to which there was no response from the respondent. He was issued with Articles of Charge alleging unauthorized absence. The respondent submitted his reply to the charge sheet, however he was subjected to disciplinary inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The findings of the inquiry officer was served on the respondent vide second show cause notice dated:21.11.2016. The respondent did not submit his reply to the findings of the inquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority on an examination of the material evidence on record, as also the findings of the inquiry officer concluded that the charges leveled against the respondent is established. On a perusal of the history sheet of the workman, it was found that the respondent had past record of seven cases of unauthorized absence. The Disciplinary Authority therefore, dismissed the respondent from service vide order dated:28.12.2016.

¶31

The respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Mangaluru in I.D.A No.28/2017. The Labour Court held the

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶33

domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation as fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated:04.09.2018 held that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman and directed reinstatement of the respondent with backwages from 23.11.2015 till April 2016. 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.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶35

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶36

The facts have been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent is a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation, he came under a disciplinary inquiry for the act of misconduct and he was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissal. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. It is not in

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶38

dispute that the respondent remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 07.11.2015. Articles of charge was issued to him. Though the respondent replied to the articles of charge and furnished certain medical documents, he did not attend the inquiry proceedings to substantiate his unauthorized absence before the inquiry proceedings. Hence, the inquiry officer left with no option except to treat the respondent as exparte and concluded that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and passed the order of dismissal.

¶39

Before the Labour Court, the respondent produced certain documents i.e., medical records. The Labour Court on appreciation of those medical records, came to conclusion that the inquiry officer has failed to take note of these documents and erroneously given findings. Furthermore, the Labour Court has also concluded that the Court has got power to reappraise the evidence of departmental inquiry and held that the order of dismissal is a capital punishment and hence the same is disproportionate to the misconduct and ultimately set-aside the order of dismissal. This finding and conclusion is erroneous. The reason is apparent. The order of dismissal for the misconduct is

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶41

not a capital punishment as understood by the Presiding Officer. As already noted above, though the respondent replied to the Articles of charge by furnishing medical documents, but he remained absent before the inquiry proceedings. However, he chose to produce the medical documents before the Labour Court. A perusal of the Medical documents would depict that he is not suffering from any disease. On the contrary, the medical documents would reveal that he is suffering from Thyroid and Thyroid is not a disease.

¶42

Exs.A.8, 13 & 14 are the medical certificates. A doctor by name Sunil Patil has suggested three months rest for the respondent, but there is no particulars about the disease. In the absence of all these things, the Labour Court has erred in placing reliance on the medical documents. It is pivotal to note that the Labour Court should have been more careful in placing reliance on these documents when the respondent had failed to substantiate the same before the inquiry officer. The Labour Court ought to have noticed that the respondent was unauthorizedly absent for a period of 01 year 01 month. This is a serious misconduct. The Labour Court has failed to take note of the fact that the respondent remained absent from duty

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶44

without justifiable cause. The Labour Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the respondent being a Driver cum Conductor exhibited utter negligence and disinterest in discharging his duties. This is evident from the fact that he had remained absent from 07.11.2015 without getting leave sanctioned. The Labour Court on an erroneous approach concluded that compelling circumstances made the respondent to remain absent. The Labour Court extended misplaced sympathy while directing the Corporation to reinstate the workman to the post held by him.

¶45

In the last resort, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that a memo has been filed along with documents on 21.11.2022 stating that pursuant to the interim order of reinstatement dated:26.09.2019, the Corporation has issued Call letters to the respondent calling upon him to come and report to duty, but there is no response from the respondent. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and appropriate order may be passed.

¶46

Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record.

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶48

I have perused the memo and also the documents with utmost care. A perusal of the same would reveal that the pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 26.09.2019, Corporation has issued Call letters on 27.02.2020, 03.06.2020 and 10.08.2020, but the respondent has not reported to the duty. The Corporation has also served the Call letter personally on the respondent, but he did not report to duty.

¶49

The conduct of the respondent in remaining absent unauthorizedly depicts that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently. Furthermore, even after the order of reinstatement by this Court, he has failed to report to duty despite receipt of Call letters from the Corporation. I may venture to say that such an employee does not deserve any sympathy much less a misplaced sympathy. In any view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The award of the Labour Court is otherwise erroneous and unjust. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:36769 WP No. 41638 of 2019

¶52

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:04.09.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in I.D.A No.28/2017 vide Annexure-G is quashed. The order of dismissal dated:28.12.2016 is confirmed.

¶53

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶54

In view of the confirmation of the punishment order, the interim order of reinstatement stands discharged.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Annaraya @ Annappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Annaraya @ Annappa

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

V Thathachar Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Vs B Chandrashekar

Sri B T Shivananda Vs the Management of Ksrtc

M/S Hindustan Distilleries (Karnataka) Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and Appellate Officer

Sri. Parameswarappa Vs the State of Karnataka