Allowed

Karnataka State Road v. D.S. Srinivasagowda

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023WP/49891/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court set aside a Labour Court award reinstating a dismissed employee. The Court found the employee failed to follow medical leave procedures and ignored disciplinary inquiries. The Labour Court erred by relying on irrelevant orders from other corporations and ignoring the employee's past misconduct.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Labour Court dated 26.10.2018 was quashed, the order of dismissal dated 16.05.2014 was confirmed, and interim reinstatement order discharged.

Karnataka State Road Vs D.S. Srinivasagowda — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.49891 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

D.S. SRINIVASAGOWDA S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O PUTTERI VILLAGE, YELAGONDAHALLI POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

Notice to the respondent was ordered on 10.01.2020. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶23

2. The brief facts are these:

¶24

The respondent D.S.Srinivasagowda was a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duty unauthorizedly with effect from 01.06.2013 and continued till date of dismissal i.e., 16.05.2014. On the basis of the report dated:18.06.2013 submitted by the Depot Manager, the respondent was issued with two call letters dated:28.06.2013 and 09.07.2013. Though he received the same, he failed to respond. Hence, the respondent was issued with Articles of charge dated:14.08.2013. He did not chose to reply to the Articles of

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶26

charge. The respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Though he was issued with notice of inquiry, he did not attend the inquiry. Hence, he was notified of the inquiry by way of paper publication in Kannada Prabha newspaper published on 28.02.2014, fixing the date of inquiry on 05.03.2014. The respondent did not attend the inquiry, hence another opportunity was granted to him to attend the inquiry on 20.03.2014. The respondent did not attend the inquiry, hence the inquiry was conducted and concluded on 20.03.2014 by placing him ex-parte.

¶27

The inquiry officer submitted his findings on 03.04.2014, holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a show cause notice on 04.04.2014, furnishing with the findings of the inquiry officer and the history sheet, even the said show cause notice was not replied by the respondent. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the present misconduct of the respondent as also his past history of thirteen cases, dismissed the respondent from service on 16.05.2014.

¶28

The respondent questioned the order of dismissal by raising a dispute and the same came to be referred to the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶31

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.32/2016. The Corporation upon receipt of notice, filed its counter statement. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue as to the validity of domestic inquiry, held the same as not fair and proper vide order dated:06.06.2018. The Corporation examined two witnesses in support of its case and furnished document marked as Exs.M1 to M7, while the workman examined himself and furnished documents marked as Exs.W1 to W12. On an adjudication of the dispute, the Labour Court vide award dated:26.10.2018 held that the order of dismissal as harsh and directed reinstatement of the workman with consequential benefits and continuity of service without backwages. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶36

Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry for the act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service vide order dated:16.05.2014. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 01.06.2013 and continued till the date of dismissal i.e., 16.05.2014. In the claim statement, the workman specifically contended that during first week of June 2013, he fell ill and hence, he could not report for duty; he sent a leave letter to the Depot and informed the depot authorities about his illness and requested to treat the absence period as leave upto the date of report for duty. It is also his case that he was under the impression that the Corporation could have sanctioned leave on medical grounds. He contended that he submitted duty report on 02.09.2013.

¶37

It is relevant to note that as per the leave rules of the Corporation, an employee availing leave on medical grounds is required to submit the leave application along with a medical certificate issued by the medical officer. In the present case, the respondent remained absent without submitting any medical certificate or leave application. The medical certificate

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶40

dated:31.08.2013 states that the respondent was suffering from Hepatatis, APD, that the period of absence from 01.06.2013 to 31.08.2013 was necessary for restoration of his health. It is pivotal to note, that the medical certificate is secured by the respondent on 31.08.2013, which clearly establish that he had not secured medical certificate suggesting to avail leave for restoration of his health, from the date on which he remained absent. As already noted above, as per the leave rules, the application seeking leave on medical grounds is to be accompanied by a medical certificate. The very fact that he obtained the medical certificate after a period of ninety two days would show that the respondent had not followed the procedure in seeking medical leave. Furthermore, the alleged medical certificate was not accompanied by the clinical reports. Hence, the Labour Court could not have placed reliance on the medical certificate.

¶41

The workman specifically contended that he submitted duty report on 02.09.2013, but he was not given permission. The Corporation contended that there is no seal of the division office in the duty report alleged to have been submitted by the workman. If the Corporation has not received the duty report, then the contention that the workman submitted duty report

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶44

cannot be accepted. Furthermore, if the workman had submitted duty report on 02.09.2013, there was no need for the Corporation to issue Articles of charge to the workman. It is pivotal to note that the articles of charge was received by the father of the workman on 21.11.2013. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court.

¶45

The Labour Court placed reliance on Exs.W4 to W12 to come to a conclusion that the order of punishment is discriminatory in nature. This is erroneous. The orders of punishment at Exs.W4, 6 to 11 pertains to different Corporation and the said orders are not binding on this Corporation. The facts and circumstances that were involved in those orders are not known to the Corporation. Hence, placing reliance on the orders of punishment passed by the different Corporation is totally unsustainable in law.

¶46

The Labour Court erred in placing reliance on the orders of punishment made in respect of Nandish and Shanthamma. The reason is apparent. The Labour Court has failed to notice that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to case. It is perhaps well to observe that each

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶49

case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the worker.

¶50

The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while evaluating the misconduct committed by him and this is contrary to the records. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while passing the order of dismissal. It is needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. 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.

¶51

Lastly, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that this Court vide interim order dated:10.01.2020, directed reinstatement of respondent. She also submits that the petition was listed on 19.07.2023. A submission was made on behalf of the Corporation that despite issuance of call notices, the respondent has not reported back for duty, hence, the case was

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶54

adjourned to furnish the materials. Accordingly, a memo has been filed furnishing the copy of call letter and endorsements dated 11.02.2020, 11.03.2020 and 06.06.2020. Counsel therefore, submits that the same may be placed on record and appropriate order may be passed.

¶55

Submission is noted. Memo along with the copy of Call letter and endorsements are placed on record. A perusal of the same would reveal that the respondent has not reported to duty despite issue of call letter and endorsements. The conduct of the respondent depicts that he is not interested in discharging his duties. 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.

¶56

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:26.10.2018 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in I.D. No.32/2016 vide Annexure-G is quashed. The order of dismissal dated:16.05.2014 is confirmed.

¶57

As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:45701 WP No. 49891 of 2019

¶59

10 -

¶60

In view of confirmation of the order of dismissal, the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and pending interlocutory application if any are disposed of.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

TKN/MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Karnataka State Road v. D.S. Srinivasagowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. D.S. Srinivasagowda

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 Divisional Controller Vs Sri.J.Chandrashekar

The Management Central Office Vs Sri C Munirathnam

Lingaraju Vs Chief Traffic Manager

Sri Jayabharathi Co-Operative High School Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Mr Mahesh Kumar Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

M/S K C Das Private Limited Vs Mr. a H Devaraju