Allowed

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Bettarayaswamy M R

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023WP/9021/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Corporation challenging the Labour Court's award. The Court held that the respondent was an habitual absentee and the medical certificate relied upon for reinstatement was fabricated. Consequently, the Labour Court award was quashed and the dismissal order confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The Award dated 26.11.2019 of the II Addl. Labour Court was quashed. The order of dismissal dated 27.02.2019 was confirmed.

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39821 WP No. 9021 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.9021 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NORTH RANGE, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BETTARAYASWAMY M.R., S/O RANGAPPA M., ADULT, R/O MASANAVAGHATTA POST AND VILLAGE, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 224. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39821 WP No. 9021 of 2021

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 27.05.2021. 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.

¶20

2. The brief facts are these:

¶21

The respondent was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation and was placed on probation in the year 2011. He remained absent from duty without any intimation from 05.10.2016. On 14.10.2016, the Depot Manager sent a report to the Divisional Controller intimating his unauthorized absence. The respondent was issued with Articles of Charge alleging unauthorized absence and the respondent did not submit his reply to the Articles of charge. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with show

¶22

cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer and the respondent did not respond to the notice. The disciplinary

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39821 WP No. 9021 of 2021

¶24

authority examined the past conduct of the respondent, there were eight absent cases and there was no explanation for absence by the respondent. Hence, he was dismissed from service on the charge of proved misconduct of unauthorized absence on 27.02.2019.

¶25

The respondent raised a dispute before the II Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.25/2019. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated:26.11.2019 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service without consequential benefits and 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39821 WP No. 9021 of 2021

¶29

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service back in the year 2019.

¶30

The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from 05.10.2016. The respondent made an attempt to substantiate his unauthorized absence by contending that he was unwell and he produced the medical document. In the claim statement, he has contended that his wife was unwell, he took care of his wife and hence he fell sick. The Labour Court has overlooked the dual stand.

¶31

The respondent remained absent from 05.10.2016 to 24.10.2017. It is relevant to note that he did not submit leave application. However, he produced Medical Certificate which was marked as Ex.M.14. The Certificate is dated:05.10.2016. In the said Certificate, the doctor of Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital has certified that the respondent needs rest from 05.10.2016 till 22.10.2017. No doctor would predict that his

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39821 WP No. 9021 of 2021

¶33

patient would be fit to resume duty from a particular date that too after a year. The Medical Officer has not been examined. The Medical Certificate with the dates specified clearly shows that it is tailor made. Therefore, the Labour Court could not have placed reliance on the Medical Certificate to conclude that the absence is not willful.

¶34

Furthermore, the Labour Court has over-looked the fact that the respondent is an habitual absentee. The same is evident from the fact that he remained absent in the past on eight occasions and despite providing him sufficient opportunity to reform his conduct by imposing minor punishment, there was no improvement.

¶35

The Labour Court also erred in placing reliance on Exs.W1 to Ex.W5 to conclude that the order of punishment is discriminatory in nature. This finding is erroneous. The reason is simple. 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 case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39821 WP No. 9021 of 2021

¶37

worker. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is setaside.

¶38

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated:26.11.2019 passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.25/2019 vide Annexure-F is quashed. The order of dismissal dated:27.02.2019 is confirmed.

¶39

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶40

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order

¶41

granted by this Court stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Bettarayaswamy M R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Bettarayaswamy M 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 Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. K N Balachandra Rai

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. Basavaraju

Sri. Deviprasad K K Vs the Management of

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B Ravindrakumar

The Chief Accounts Officer & Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs a v Bhuvaneshwar Kumar