Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. K M Manjegowda

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023WP/57704/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation seeking to quash an order dismissing an application for approval of dismissal. The Court held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in extending its scope, and since the domestic enquiry was fair and the workman offered no valid reason for absence, the dismissal application must be allowed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is quashed; the Serial Application No.499/2012 seeking approval is hereby allowed.

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 57704 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 57704 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN 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 B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

K.M. MANJEGOWDA S/O BETEGOWDA C/O SHANTHA, BEHIND COURT SHARADAMBA NILAYA 12TH WARD, B M ROAD CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K.M. MANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2018 IN SLA NO.499/2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

WP No. 57704 of 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Serial Application No.499/2012, by which, the application filed by the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the I D Act is impugned in this writ petition.

¶22

The Corporation dismissed the workman from service for having remained unauthorizedly absent. The Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) seeking approval of the order of dismissal, since a dispute in ID No.148/2005 concerning the workman and Corporation was pending. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the application.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

By order dated 25.6.2016, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper. The enquiry contemplated under Section 33(2)(b) is summary in nature and the scope is to see that prima facie if the domestic enquiry is fair and proper, and whether the workman was given a reasonable opportunity in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the object behind such a provision is to ensure that pending adjudication of the dispute, that there was an element of victimisation and unfair trade practice while passing the order of dismissal from service against the workman leading to further industrial dispute.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 57704 of 2018

¶27

However, the Tribunal extended the scope of enquiry adjudicated the claim petition as if it is a claim petition filed under Section 10(4)(a) of the I D Act.

¶28

Perusal of the material indicates that the workman was provided with sufficient opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and had not produced the medical certificates to substantiate his claim that his unauthorised absence was due to ill-health. The workman had neither sought for leave nor taken permission during the period of absence.

¶29

The domestic enquiry having been held as fair and proper and the workman having not shown sufficient cause for his absence, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the Corporation seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act.

¶30

The grant of approval will not preclude the workman from challenging the order of dismissal passed against him in a manner known to law, if he is otherwise aggrieved.

¶31

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 57704 of 2018

¶36

ii) Quashed and consequently the Serial Application No.499/2012 in ID No.148/2005 seeking approval is hereby allowed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. K M Manjegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. K M Manjegowda

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

Bata India Limited Vs President

Karnataka State Road Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Dr Shobha M v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Manjunath Vs the Division Controller

Sri Mallesha Vs the Manager

Suryodaya Mill Workers Union Vs the Management of Suryodaya Industries Limited