Writ petitioner challenged the dismissal by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation of its claim under Section 10(4) ID Act against his dismissal. The High Court rejected the challenge.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned judgment of Labour Court confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 11471 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. PAVAN, S/O LATE CHANNAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PORLY HOUSE, BAJATHUR VILLAGE, KANCHANA POST, VIA MANDARTHI, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 241.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANGI REDDY B V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANGALURU DIVISION, BIJJAI, MANGALURU - 575 002. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO-CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED 22.06.2017 IN IDA NO.1/2015 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MANGALORE, D.K ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The workman is before this Court assailing the order dated 22.06.2017 in IDA No.1/2015 on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (herein after referred to as "Labour Court" for short), whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (herein after referred to as "ID Act" for short), was dismissed.
Articles of charges issued to the workman, who has working as a conductor at Mysore Division since 1999, while discharging his duties on 30.01.2012, when the bus bearing No.KA-01-F-8440 was inspected by the inspecting officer, at the time of inspection, it was found that 22 passengers were travelling in the bus and the workman had failed to issue tickets to two passengers, each worth Rs.438/-, despite collecting the fare from them. Not being
satisfied with the reply submitted by the workman, enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted the
report holding that the charges levelled against the workman are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the report and the material placed before it, imposed punishment of dismissal. Challenging the order of dismissal as false and baseless, on the ground of victimisation and an unfair labour practice, the workman approached the Labour Court by filing the claim statement under Section 10(4) of the ID Act, 1947.
minor punishment and in spite of imposing minor punishment, the workman has not mend his ways and there cannot be a lenient approach to be exercised by taking discretionary power under Section 11A of the ID Act.
corporation, taking to the memo filed by the corporation, submits that the corporation has filed serial application No.137/2015 before the Industrial Tribunal and the same was allowed in terms of the joint memo filed and the order
in Sl. Application is produced as Ex.M.64 before the Labour
Court.
parties, the question that falls for consideration is:
“Whether the order passed by the Labour Court
warrants any interference?”
contemplates as under:
"33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.
(1) XXX
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute.
(a) XXX
(b) For any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid
wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer."
part of the respondent-corporation to comply with the requirement under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, and non-compliance with the said provision makes the order of dismissal non-est in law. Sl. Application was filed by the corporation under Section 33 (2) (b) seeking to approve the action taken by the corporation against the workman. Memo was filed by the workman in Sl. Application No.137/2015 in I.D. No.148/2005, which reads as under:
MEMO FOR SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION
dispute before the Labour Court, Mangalore challenging the order of dismissal dated 23.01.2015 by invoking the provisions under section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The dispute is registered as I.D.A.1/2015.
2. In view of the dispute already raised by the Opposite Party, It is submitted that the above Serial Application filed by the applicant
Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, may kindly be allowed so as to enable the Opposite Party to prosecute the matter before the Labour Court, Mangalore in the pending Industrial Dispute.
(Emphasis supplied)
called before the Lok Adalath and as per the memo, the Serial Application was allowed. Thus, the contention of the workman that the respondent has not taken permission and the order of dismissal is non-est in law falls to ground.
observed by the Labour Court in paragraph No.7.16 of the order. The Labour Court has rightly not exercised its discretion available under Section 11A of the ID Act. There is no perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court warranting no interference and accordingly,
this Court pass the following:
ORDER
ii. The impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court stands Confirmed .
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
BKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's order dismissing the workman's application under Section 10(4) of the ID Act?
Whether the dismissal was valid in light of the pending Section 33(2)(b) proceedings and lack of permission from the Tribunal?
Whether the dismissal warrants interference considering the workman's history of repeated misconduct?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Not citedReferred
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. P. Pavan
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
H.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
