Allowed

Divisional Controller v. Sri Mukunda H R

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023WP/49303/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a Labour Court award reinstating a dismissed employee. The Court held the medical evidence for absences during the inquiry period was submited belatedly and the employee failed to report post-reinstatement, confirming the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The affidavit filed by the petitioner is allowed. The Labour Court award dated 02.03.2017 is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 20.06.2013 is confirmed.

Divisional Controller Vs Sri Mukunda H R — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:43852 WP No. 49303 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.49303 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, WEST DIVISION, KENGERI, BENGALURU, NOW REPRESENTED BY BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. MUKUNDA.H.R. S/O V.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT INDIRA NAGAR, CHICKANAYAKANA HALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:43852 WP No. 49303 of 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., for the petitioner and

¶22

Sri.M.C.Basavaraj., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶23

The brief facts are these:

¶24

The respondent was appointed and working as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly without submitting leave letter or obtaining prior permission from 16.06.2011 onwards till 20.06.2013. The Assistant Transport Inspector taking note of the unauthorized absent, submitted a report to the Depot Manager on 26.07.2011. On 27.07.2011, a call notice was issued to the respondent calling upon him to report to duty. The Depot Manager submitted a detailed report to the Superiors of the Corporation on 07.08.2011. Based on the Depot Manager's report, Articles of charge was issued along with imputation, documents, list of witnesses. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:43852 WP No. 49303 of 2017

¶27

authority issued second show cause notice. The disciplinary authority considering the domestic inquiry report, materials and the past conduct of the respondent, dismissed him from service vide order dated:20.06.2013.

¶28

As things stood thus, the respondent raised a dispute before the I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.39/2015. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated:02.03.2017 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent without backwages, but entitled to get all benefits with continuity of service. 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.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶30

respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶31

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

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43852 WP No. 49303 of 2017

¶33

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for the act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service.

¶34

The issue revolves around the act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence from 16.06.2011 till 20.06.2013. It is pivotal to note that the workman remained ex-parte before the inquiry proceedings. However, he furnished certain medical documents before the Labour Court for the first time. Ex.W series relates to prescriptions and medical certificates. The Labour Court took note of the medical documents and concluded that sufficient cause is shown for remaining absent. This is unsustainable in law. The reason is apparent. As already noted above, the workman remained absent before the inquiry proceedings. The medical documents furnished for the first time before the Labour Court pertains to the absence period. Nothing prevented the workman from furnishing the same before the inquiry officer to justify the case of unauthorized absence. Instead of doing so, for the first time, he furnished the medical prescriptions and certificates before the Labour

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43852 WP No. 49303 of 2017

¶36

Court. The Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that nothing prevented the workman to participate in the inquiry proceedings and furnish the medical documents to defend his case.

¶37

Furthermore, this Court vide order dated:07.06.2022, directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service. Taking note of the order, the Corporation issued Call letters on 16.07.2022 and 10.08.2022 calling upon the respondent to report to duty and issued an endorsement on 30.08.2022. He did not report to duty.

¶38

An attempt is made on behalf of the respondent that he had suffered an injury and hence, he requested the Corporation to accord him a light duty. The respondent has filed the statement of objections and he has furnished certain medical documents. They are dated 10.10.2020. It is pivotal to note that despite the order of reinstatement, except for saying that he has suffered injury, the respondent has not made any efforts to come and report to duty. Needless to say that if at all he had suffered any injury, nothing prevented him to visit the Corporation personally and plead his disability. This has not

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43852 WP No. 49303 of 2017

¶40

been done so. Hence, there is no need to consider the documents that furnished along with the statement of objections.

¶41

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. I may venture to say that such an employee does not deserve any sympathy much less a misplaced sympathy. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶42

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:02.03.2017 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.39/2015 vide Annexure-C is quashed. The order of dismissal dated:20.06.2013 is confirmed.

¶43

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

TKN

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Divisional Controller v. Sri Mukunda H R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Controller v. Sri Mukunda H R

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

The Chief Security & Vigilance Officer Vs Sri Hamsagiri C M

Sharan Desai Ms Usa Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs N Manjunath

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri H S Nath

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri H S Nath

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner