Quashed

Karnataka State Road v. C Mohan Kumar

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/41654/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside a Labour Court award that quashed a disciplinary order dismissing a workman for unauthorized absence. The Court held the Labour Court erred in relying on punishment orders from different corporations and misconstruing the charge sheet as granting leave.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court award dated 21.05.2018 is set-aside and the writ of certiorari is ordered to quash it.

Karnataka State Road Vs C Mohan Kumar — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39695 WP No. 41654 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.41654 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION,

¶6

MYSORE,

¶7

BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

C.MOHAN KUMAR

¶12

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,

¶13

P.SHYLA W/O LATE C.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

M.CHANDAN S/O LATE C.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶16

PRITHAM.M.KUMAR S/O LATE C.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶17

ALL R/AT #1143/75C, F-8/3, SARVAJANIKA HOSTEL ROAD, VIDYARANAYPURAM MYSURU - 570 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MAHESH R.UPPIN., ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39695 WP No. 41654 of 2019

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mahesh R.Uppin., learned counsel for the respondents have appeared in person.

¶25

2. The brief facts are these:

¶26

The workman - C.Mohan Kumar was a Driver Cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 09.05.2012 to 07.09.2012. On the basis of the report submitted by the Depot Manager, he was issued with Articles of charge alleging his unauthorized absence. He did not submit his reply to the Articles of charge. He was subjected to disciplinary inquiry. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. Though the workman was provided with sufficient opportunity to submit the documents in support of his contention regarding

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39695 WP No. 41654 of 2019

¶28

his alleged illness, after appearing for preliminary inquiry he did not chose to participate in the inquiry subsequently. He did not submit his defense statement nor reply to the Articles of charge. The findings of the inquiry officer was served on the respondent along with history sheet vide show case notice dated:25.06.2014 to which he did not submit his reply. The disciplinary authority while evaluating the misconduct of the workman for remaining absent from duty from 09.05.2012 to 07.09.2012, also took note of nineteen absent cases and dismissed him from service vide order dated:05.09.2014.

¶29

The workman died on 19.11.2015. The legal representatives of the deceased workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Mysore in Reference No.49/2016. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. Hence, the parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide Award dated:21.05.2018 set-aside the order of punishment and directed to withhold three increments with cumulative effect and directed the Corporation to pay all service benefits to the respondents except backwages including an order for consideration of providing an appointment on compassionate

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39695 WP No. 41654 of 2019

¶32

grounds. 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.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around the misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence. The Labour Court concluded that there is a misconduct on the part of the workman, however, proceeded to set-aside the order of punishment. This is incorrect. The Labour Court while examining the proportionality of order of punishment imposed on the workman, held that the same is disproportionate. The finding is based on few orders of punishment produced as Exs.W1 to W9.

¶36

The order of punishment order produced at Ex.W1 pertains to an employee of BMTC which is a different

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:39695 WP No. 41654 of 2019

¶39

Corporation. Hence, the order passed by a different Corporation cannot be a basis to hold that the order of punishment is disproportionate.

¶40

The Labour Court also erred in placing reliance on the order of punishment furnished by the respondents in Exs.W2 to W9 to hold that there is a disparity in the matter of imposition of punishment. This reasoning is unsustainable. The reason is simple and apparent. The orders of punishment passed in respect of employees at Exs.W2 to W9 is different from the case of the workman in the present case. Suffice it to note that, the workman in the present case did not participate in the inquiry proceedings and no documents were produced in support of his absence nor the Legal representatives have produced any supporting documents before the Labour Court.

¶41

It is pivotal to note that the workman had a history of nineteen cases of unauthorized absence. Hence, this case is different from that of the cases referred to in Exs.W2 to W9. Furthermore, the Labour Court has totally misconstrued the history sheet. The charge made against the workman is that he remained absent unathorizedly from 09.05.2012 to 07.09.2012

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:39695 WP No. 41654 of 2019

¶44

i.e., for 122 days. However, the Labour Court not properly understood the history sheet and has erroneously observed that the Corporation had granted leave for the above said period. This is incorrect. The workman remained absent unauthorizedly from 09.05.2012 to 07.09.2012 and not from 09.05.2012 till the date of dismissal as observed by the Labour Court. It is also relevant to note that the workman did not submit leave application for the period of his unauthorized absence i.e., from 09.05.2012 to 07.09.2012. Hence, there is no question of granting leave for the said period. In my view, the Labour Court has failed to understand the issue despite concluding that the misconduct is proved.

¶45

It is relevant to note that the workman remained

¶46

absent from duty on nineteen occasions. This was taken into consideration by evaluating the misconduct and imposing punishment on the workman. Therefore, the finding that the workman was not accorded with an opportunity in respect of the past conduct is erroneous. It is needless to say that it was not required to frame a charge in respect of past conduct and the history sheet is required to be considered while imposing punishment in terms of Regulation 25 of KSRTC (Conduct and

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39695 WP No. 41654 of 2019

¶48

Discipline) Regulations. Hence, the findings of the Labour Court is erroneous. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

¶49

For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶50

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:21.05.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore in Ref.No.49/2016 vide Annexure-J is quashed. The order of punishment dated:05.09.2014 passed by the Corporation is confirmed.

¶51

9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Karnataka State Road v. C Mohan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. C Mohan Kumar

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

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

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. K N Balachandra Rai

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. Basavaraju

Sri. Deviprasad K K Vs the Management of