Partly allowed

M Sampath Kumar v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023WP/6556/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the labour court award that dismissed a workman for unauthorized absence. The court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits, forfeiting one increment and without back wages, deeming the original dismissal disproportionate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated with continuity of service and benefits by withholding one annual increment cumulatively and without back wages; impugned award quashed.

M Sampath Kumar Vs the Divisional Controller — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6556 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6556 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M. SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT PARSHWAGANAHALLI, MUDUVATTI POST, VAKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, B.M.T.C., EAST DIVISION/REGION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY J., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 23.11.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF NO.33/2017 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE DISPUTE AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

WP No. 6556 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed challenging the award dated 23.11.2017 passed in Ref. No.33/2017 by the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, by which, the claim petition filed by the workman under Section 10(1)(C)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was dismissed.

¶20

The petitioner when working as driver-cumconductor in the respondent - Corporation was issued with article of charges alleging that, he had remained absent unauthorisedly from 31.7.2014 till issuance of article of charges.

¶21

The workman having not replied to the article of charges, an enquiry was conducted and report was submitted stating that the charge against the workman is proved. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing the second show cause notice passed an order dismissing the workman from service, against which, the dispute under Section 10(1)(C)(d) of the I D Act, 1947 was raised.

¶22

The issue, whether the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper was treated as preliminary issue, and the Labour Court after examining the material on record held that the enquiry conducted against the workman was not fair and proper.

¶23

The workman examined himself as MW1 and marked the documents as Exs.M1 to M13. The Labour Court after examining the evidence on record held that the charge

¶24

¶25

WP No. 6556 of 2019

¶26

against the workmen is proved and accordingly dismissed the claim petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The charge against the workman is that he had remained absent unauthorizedly from 31.7.2014 till the issuance of article of charges i.e. nearly for 150 days. The documents produced by the workman to substantiate his unauthorized absence was due to ill-health were disbelieved. However having regard to the fact that the unauthorized absence is only for a period of 150 days, and in the absence of any past history, and also taking into account that the petitioner has got twenty year of service left and his family members will be deprived of their source of livelihood, the Labour Court in exercise of power under Section 11A of the I D act, 1947 ought to have modified the order of dismissal by imposing lesser punishment holding that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of proved charge. Hence, to this extent, the impugned order of dismissal requires to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶31

ii) The award dated 23.11.2018 passed in Ref.No.33/2017 by the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore is hereby quashed and consequently, the claim petition under Section 10(1)(C ) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 6556 of 2019

¶34

(iii) The respondent - Corporation is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and consequently benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement by withholding one annual increment cumulatively and without back wages. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKM

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

M Sampath Kumar v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sampath Kumar v. the Divisional Controller

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

Sri v Manjunath Vs the Division Controller

Sri Mallesha Vs the Manager

Suryodaya Mill Workers Union Vs the Management of Suryodaya Industries Limited

Shashikala Bai Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Chandan K N Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner