Allowed

The Management of v. Smt. Jasintha a S

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024WA/950/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Management's writ appeal against a Single Judge order reinstating a dismissed employee and voiding the Labour Court award. The Division Bench held Article 227 jurisdiction is limited, misconduct was proven, and restored the Labour Court award dismissing the workman's petition.

What did the court decide?

Single Judge's order setting aside the Labour Court award was quashed; W.P.No.39760/2012 dismissed; Labour Court award reinstating dismissal restored; costs made easy.

The Management of Vs Smt. Jasintha a S — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 950 OF 2014 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD., FOUNDRY & FORGE DIVISION, BANGALORE COMPLEX, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (MFG), P.B NO.1791, BANGALORE-560 017, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(FORGING) SRI. K.P. HOTTA

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KAMALACHARAN S.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. JASINTHA A S W/O LATE L SELVANATHAN MANOGARAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶14

S M I SAVITHA D/O LATE L SELVANATHAN MANOGARAN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶15

JAYANTHI S A D/O LATE L SELVANATHAN MANOGARAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶18

4. GERARD S A

¶19

S/O LATE L SELVANATHAN MANOGARAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶20

ALL R/AT C/O NO.275, EBENEZER STRUTO FAB, 80 FEET ROAD, 7^TH MAIN, SUBBANAPALYA, KALYAN NAGAR, HRBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SOHANI HOLLA M., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.39760/2012 DATED 4/2/2014.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGEMENT

¶26

This intra-court appeal by the Management of

¶27

HAL Ltd., a Central Government Organization, seeks to call in question a l earned Single Judge's order dated 04.02.2014, whereby, Respondent-workman's W.P.No.39760/2012(L-RES), having been favoured, a direction has been issued for reinstatement in service with all consequential terminal benefits after voiding the Labour

¶28

Court award. The workman died in the course of legal battle and his LRs are on record now.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶30

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant

¶31

vehemently argues for the voiding of the impugned order that: the workman at the earliest point of time had admitted the theft of two aluminum solid blocks, although he resiled from the same later; the disciplinary proceedings having resulted into dismissal order, the same

¶32

came to be upheld by the Labour Court on reference u/s.10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; issue as to the fairness in the disciplinary proceedings was tried with full opportunity to the workman and the Labour court held it in the affirmative; approval was sought to the dismissal order by filing serial application; however, that was rendered infructuous since the workman had filed a memo as to he having raised an industrial dispute; all this having not being properly appreciated, the learned Single Judge fell in error in upsetting the Labour Court award and directing reinstatement with consequential benefits. He

¶33

also highlights the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which did not permit deeper examination of the Labour Court award.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the L.Rs. of deceased workman made submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶38

and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶39

(a) The first submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for appellant that the scope of challenge to the Labour Court award launched under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restrictive, gains our acceptance and therefore the learned Single Judge could not have readily upset the Labour Court award, even if there were some arguable errors of fact. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Labour Court after due adjudication had recorded a finding as to the proven guilt of the delinquent workman; this was done after giving an opportunity to him. This aspect could not have been over looked by the learned Single Judge who was exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the other

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶41

provision namely Article 226 having been ornamentally employed by the workman in his pleadings i.e., in the writ petition. It was not the case of workman that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. Thus the very approach of learned Single Judge to the matter is juridically defective. This is first infirmity in the impugned order.

¶42

(b) There is a wealth of material on record which the Labour Court duly considered after giving opportunity to the workman and only thereafter came to the right conclusion that it was a case of proven misconduct and therefore warranted dismissal from service. There is another aspect which the learned Counsel appearing for the management highlights; the management has got substantiated the charge even before the Labour Court and this aspect of the matter has not been duly adverted to by the learned Single Judge. It is relevant to mention what the Apex Court observed in VIRENDRA BHANDARI

¶43

vs. RAJASTHAN SRTC, (2002) SCC OnLine 420 at

¶44

para 4:

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶46

“… What is to be borne in mind in proceedings of this nature is that the industrial disputes are referred to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal for maintenance of industrial peace and not merely for adjudication of the dispute between two private parties. That aspect seemed to have been lost sight of by the Tribunal on the first occasion and by the High Court in the order under appeal. …”.

¶47

The impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not reflect the above approach to the matter. This constitutes the second infirmity.

¶48

(c) Learned Single Judge wrongly invoked the Apex Court decision in JAIPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LIMITED vs. RAM GOPAL SHARMA &

¶49

OTHERS, LLJ 2002(1) 834, when the foundational fact matrix was not available for its invocation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is right in contending that the issue was covered by a learned Single Judge’s

¶50

decision in Management of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs.

¶51

Dood Badshah Bani, ILR 2007 KAR 1591 , inasmuch as

¶52

the serial application of the management seeking approval

¶53

was put to rest at the instance of the workman who had

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶55

moved a specific memo to that effect stating that he had already raised the industrial dispute u/s.10(1) of 1947 Act. Therefore, the inarticulate premise on which the learned Single Judge has structured his judgement that without approval, punishment of dismissal would not take effect becomes explicable, as rightly argued by learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶56

(d) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is more than justified in superadding that fraud & fabrication on the part of workmen are a serious matter for any employer and therefore, where the punishment of dismissal is awarded on such a proven misconduct, there is absolutely no scope for showing sympathy. He is right in contending that the standard commentators like Justice Rama Jois in Service Jurisprudence & O P Malhotra in Industrial Jurisprudence share the same opinion. Granting any relief to a delinquent of the kind would be a case of misplaced sympathy. The Apex Court in the case of

¶57

REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC Vs. HOTILAL & ANR.,

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:26015-DB WA No. 950 of 2014

¶60

AIR 2003 SC 757 , has discussed this aspect of the

¶61

matter which involved dismissal of the bus conductor for not issuing ticket.

¶62

In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds; the impugned order of learned Single Judge is set at naught. Respondent-workman’s W.P.No.39760/2012 having been dismissed, the Labour Court award is revived & restored. Costs made easy.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

The Management of v. Smt. Jasintha a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of v. Smt. Jasintha a S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Communications Global

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S AD2PRO Media Solutions Inc., Usa

Pr Commissioner of Income TAX-2 Vs M/S Unilog Content Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri Mudduramaiah

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri N Mallikarjuna Aradhya

Mr K Made Gowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma