Dismissed

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Vittal F Bharamannavar

Karnataka HC29 May 2023WP/60895/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by NWKRTC challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a dismissed driver following an accident-related misconduct inquiry. The High Court dismissed the writ, noting the Labour Court rightly modified the dismissal to reinstatement under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the corporation to settle terminal benefits with the deceased workman's legal represent

What did the court decide?

Petitioner required to workout and settle terminal benefits of the deceased workman in favor of legal representatives within three months.

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Vittal F… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 60895 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 60895 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, BELGAUM DIVISION, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, PRESENTLY REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

RAKESH S HARIHAR

¶14

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.05.31 12:07:57 +0530

¶15

VITTAL F. BHARAMANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR. SMT. SETAVVA W/O VITTAL BHARAMANNAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRITE WRIT, ORDERN DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 07/11/2009 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, IN KID. NO.20/2004 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - WP No. 60895 of 2011

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-Corporation has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the award dated 07.11.2009 passed in KID 20/2004 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶24

The respondent-workman, who was working as a driver with the petitioner-Corporation was issued with a show cause notice in the year 1999 alleging that the bus bearing registration No.KA-22/F-1011 of which the petitioner was the driver, was taken to Dharmasthala and the petitioner had caused an accident at Belthangadi and thereafter, belatedly after six days, he had returned to Bailhongal. It was further alleged that petitioner had misutilized the Corporation funds of Rs.3,800/- for settling the claim of the victims of the accident. It was also alleged that while returning from Dharmasthala to Bailhongal, 14 persons had unauthorisedly travelled in the bus and petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.3/- each from the said passengers. On the basis of an enquiry report, wherein the petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against him,

¶25

¶26

WP No. 60895 of 2011

¶27

the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Labour Court in proceeding bearing KID No.20/2004. The Labour Court by the impugned award having held that the Corporation had proved the misconduct of the respondent-workman, however, modified the order of punishment on the ground that the same was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the respondent. Challenging the said award, the petitioner-Corporation is before this Court.

¶28

During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent-workman has died and his wife has been brought on record as his legal representative. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had caused an accident at Belthangadi and thereafterwards had settled the claim of the victims of the accident by utilizing the funds of the petitioner-Corporation. The Corporation also has further alleged that he had collected an amount of Rs.3/- each from 14 persons while bringing the bus back from Dharmasthala to Bailhongal.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 60895 of 2011

¶31

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner had

¶32

allegedly misutilised the funds of the Corporation for settling the dues of the accident victims, which was caused by him at Belthangadi, it cannot be said that the charge of misutilisation of the amount was so grave, so as to result in dismissal of the petitioner from his services. The Labour Court therefore having appreciated this aspect of the matter, while holding that the petitioner-Corporation had proved the misconduct of the respondent-workman was justified in modifying the order of punishment by exercising its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, the workman has now died. The petitioner-Corporation is therefore required to workout the terminal benefits of the deceased workman, if any, and settle the same in favour of the legal representatives. The order directing re-instatement of workman cannot be termed as bad in law.

¶33

Admittedly the backwages has been denied to the respondent-workman. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 60895 of 2011

¶36

It is needless to state that the terminal benefits, if any, of the deceased-workman shall be worked out by the petitionerCorporation at the earliest and the same shall be settled in favour of the legal representatives within a reasonable period but not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy

¶37

of this order.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Rsh/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Vittal F Bharamannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nwkrtc v. Vittal F Bharamannavar

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

Suresh S/O Ishwaragowda Ninganagowdra, Vs the Deputy Registrar Co. Operative Societies

Ningappa Basappa Ganeshappanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Padmaraj Tavanappa Alagavadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ishwarappa Mahalingappa Kolhar Vs Director of Technical Education

M/S Palled Regency Vs State of Karnataka

North West Karnataka Road Vs Mahiboob Allasab Bisti