Dismissed

Sri Aswathanarayana Reddy S/O Sri Muthappa Reddy v. M/S Nsl Sugars (Tungabhadra) Private Limited

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/12998/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the Industrial Tribunal's order approving the dismissal of workmen under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act and rejecting their complaint under Section 33(a). The High Court dismissed the petitions, confirming that one month's wages were paid and the domestic enquiry was fair.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Aswathanarayana Reddy S/O Sri Muthappa… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.12998 OF 2008 (L-TER) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.12999 OF 2008 (L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.28479 OF 2009 (L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO.28480 OF 2009 (L-TER)

¶8

IN W.P. No.12998/2008

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY S/O. SRI MUTHAPPA REDDY, SINCE DEAD ON 30.10.2017, REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶11

(a) SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA

¶12

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

W/O. LATE ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT M. NAGENAHALLI, MINKINA GURKI, JARABANDAHALLI M. NAGENAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA – 561 211.

¶14

(b) SRI SUDHARSHANA REDDY N.A. S/O. LATE ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.412, 5^TH FLOOR, LALAVENDAR APARTMENT OLD MANGAMMANAPALYA MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶17

¶18

R/AT SINGANAYAKANA HALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT – 560 064.

¶19

(d) SRI RAGHURAMA REDDY S/O. LATE ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT M. NAGENAHALLI, MINKINA GURKI, JARABANDAHALLI M. NAGENAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA – 561 211. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER THIS HON’BLE COURT ORDER DATED 05.04.2018) ... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

M/S. NSL SUGARS (TUNGABHADRA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.60/1, 2^ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MR. AMARNATH.

¶23

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 08/04/2011).

¶24

... RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI K.R. ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2008 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.10/1996 IN I.D. NO.7/1995 A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – N; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2008 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.10/1996 IN I.D.

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶28

¶29

NO.7/1995 A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE ‘N-1’ AS THE SAID ORDER SUFFER FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN IT AND ETC.

¶30

IN W.P. NO.12999/2008

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SRI A.G. RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O. LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, FORMERLY WORKING AS FIELD ASSISTANT (NOW ILLEGALLY REMOVED FROM SERVICE), SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LIMITED, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT SARDARVALLABHAI PATEL ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, KAREKALAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLPUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

¶33

(BY SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

M/S. NSL SUGARS (TUNGABHADRA) PVT. LIMITED, NO.60/1, 2^ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MR. AMARNATH.

¶36

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 08/04/2011). ... RESPONDENT

¶37

(BY SRI K.R. ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2008 PASSED BY THE

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶40

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.11/1996 IN ID NO.7/1995 A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE–N; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2008 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.11/1996 IN I.D. NO.7/1995 A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE ‘N-1’ AS THE SAID ORDER SUFFER FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN IT AND ETC.

¶41

IN W.P. NO.28479/2009

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY S/O. SRI MUTHAPPA REDDY, SINCE DEAD ON 30.10.2017, REP. BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶44

(a) SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O. LATE ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT M. NAGENAHALLI, MINKINA GURKI, JARABANDAHALLI M. NAGENAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA – 561 211.

¶45

(b) SRI SUDHARSHANA REDDY N.A. S/O. LATE ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.412, 5^TH FLOOR, LALAVENDAR APARTMENT OLD MANGAMMANAPALYA MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶48

¶49

YELAHANKA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT – 560 064.

¶50

(d) SRI RAGHURAMA REDDY S/O. LATE ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT M. NAGENAHALLI, MINKINA GURKI, JARABANDAHALLI M. NAGENAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR, KARNATAKA – 561 211.

¶51

(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER THIS HON’BLE COURT ORDER DATED 05.04.2018)

¶52

... PETITIONERS

¶53

(BY SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

M/S. NSL SUGARS (TUNGABHADRA) PVT. LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LIMITED) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.60/1, 2^ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI AMARNATH.

¶56

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 08/04/2011).

¶57

SRI N.L. SHAH MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LIMITED, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, WINSOM INTERNATIONAL, 28/1, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, 11 & 12 GANGA JAMUNA BUILDING, CALCUTTA – 700 017.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶60

THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S. SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LIMITED, GAURIBIDANUR – 561 208 KOLAR DIST – 561 208. ... RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI K.R. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 10.06.2008 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN COMPLAINT NO.7/1996 IN I.D.NO.7/1995, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE –M AS THE SAID AWARD SUFFERS FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN IT AND ETC.

¶63

IN W.P. NO.28480/2009

¶64

BETWEEN:

¶65

SRI A.G. RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O. LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, FORMERLY WORKING AS FIELD ASSISTANT (NOW ILLEGALLY REMOVED FROM SERVICE) SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD., GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, R/AT SARDAR VALLABHAI PATEL ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, KAREKALAHALLI, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

¶66

(BY SRI M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶67

AND:

¶68

M/S. NSL SUGARS (TUNGABHADRA) PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LIMITED)

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶71

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.60/1, 2^ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI AMARNATH.

¶72

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE ORDER DATED 08/04/2011).

¶73

SRI N.L. SHAH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LIMITED, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, WINSOM INTERNATIONAL, 28/1, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, 11 & 12, GANGA JAMUNA BUILDING, CALCUTTA – 700 017.

¶74

THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S. SIRUGUPPA SUGARS & CHEMICALS LIMITED, GAURUBIDANUR – 561 208 KOLAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI K.R. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶76

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 10.06.2008 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN COMPLAINT NO.8/1996 IN I.D.NO.7/1995, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE –M AS THE SAID AWARD SUFFERS FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN IT AND ETC.

¶77

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶78

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶79

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶80

ORAL ORDER

¶81

All these writ petitions are taken up together as

¶82

common questions are involved in regard to two workmen,

¶83

namely, Ashwathnarayana Reddy and

¶84

A.J.Ramachandraiah.

¶85

W.P.No.12998/2008 is by the petitioner-

¶86

workman Ashwathnarayana Reddy assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 06.02.2008 in SLA.No.10/1996 in ID No.7/1995, where under the domestic enquiry was held as fair and proper by the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short) and the order dated 10.06.2008 in Sl. Application No.10/1996 in ID No.7/1995, where under, application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act” for the sake of brevity) seeking approval of the dismissal by the respondent – management was allowed.

¶87

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶88

W.P.No.12999/2008 is preferred by the petitioner-workman A.J.Ramachandraiah assailing the order dated 06.02.2008 in SLA No. 11/1996 in ID No.7/1995 where under, the domestic enquiry was held as fair and proper and order dated 10.06.2008 in Sl. Application 11/1996 in ID No.7/1995, where under, application under Section 33(2)(b) seeking approval of the dismissal order dated 04.11.1996 was allowed.

¶89

W.P.No.28479/2009 by Ashwathnarayana

¶90

Reddy assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 10.06.2008, wherein the complaint under Section 33 of the ID Act was dismissed.

¶91

W.P.No.28480/2009 is preferred by

¶92

A.J.Ramachandraiah – workman assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 10.06.2008 in complaint No.8/1996 of ID No.7/1995, whereunder the complaint under Section 333 of the ID Act was dismissed.

¶93

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶94

Brief facts leading to file these petitions are

¶95

that, the petitioners joined services in the Gouribidanur Sugar Factory, subsequently, the said factory was sold to M/s.Shirguppa Sugars and Chemicals Limited – respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the management” for short). On certain allegation of misconduct of dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business, negligence of duty, misuse of official position and an act of subversive of discipline, charge sheet was issued against the workman – petitioners, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the workman, enquiry officer was appointed, enquiry was conducted and after holding farce of an enquiry, gave finding holding that the petitioner is guilty of charges, second show-cause notice was issued asking the petitioner as to show-cause against the finding of the enquiry officer, the petitioner submitted a representation, the disciplinary authority, by considering the enquiry report and the material placed, dismissed the petitioners from service on 04.11.1996.

¶96

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶97

The management filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act before the Industrial Tribunal seeking approval of the order of dismissal against the two workman, in the first instance, the Industrial Tribunal refused to grant approval, the order was challenged by the management in W.P.Nos.31116 & 31117 of 1999, this Court, set aside the order and remanded the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. On remand, the Industrial Tribunal once again dismissed the application. The said order was challenged by the management in W.P.No.10159/2007, this Court allowed the petition and remitted the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration. On remand, the Tribunal,

¶98

on the fairness of the domestic enquiry, arrived at a conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper. The Tribunal granted approval to the order of dismissal, the workman filed complaint under Section 33(a) of the ID Act contending that there is contravention of the provisions of Section 33

¶99

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶100

of the ID Act in view of filing of approval application under

¶101

Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

¶102

The Tribunal, by the impugned orders, rejected

¶103

the complaint filed by the petitioner – workman under section 33(a) of the ID Act.

¶104

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds:

¶105

(i) In relation to the domestic enquiry to be held fair and proper:

¶106

(a) Petitioner was not allowed to have the assistance of the co-worker of his choice, namely, C.S.Mohan on the ground that he was a dismissed workman.

¶107

(b) Enquiry was held by an advocate, who was well versed in conducting enquiries and was a legal advisor to the management.

¶108

¶109

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶110

General Manager was the appointing authority and the dismissal order passed by the factory manager Ashok Kaushik.

¶111

(ii) That the petitioner was not paid one month’s wages at the time of his dismissal. The pay order was drawn in the month of September, 1996 and he was dismissed on 04.06.1996. Therefore, the amount paid through money order in the month of September, 1996 did not include the exact amount of DA to be paid in the month of November, 1996.

¶112

(iii) That the respondent has not considered the unblemished service record of the petitioner as mitigating factor, while imposing major penalty of dismissal.

¶113

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the orders passed by the Tribunal and would contend that the Tribunal did not fall in error either holding the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper and allowing the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the

¶114

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶115

ID Act and the dismissing of the workman does not

¶116

warrant any interference.

¶117

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶118

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arise for consideration is:

¶119

“Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case?”

¶120

This is a third round of litigation, before the Tribunal both parties have adduced their evidence, Industrial Dispute No.7/1995 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, where the claims of the petitioners were adjudicated along with others, in the meanwhile, on 04.11.1996, both the petitioners were dismissed from service, as required, under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act after passing of the dismissal order, they sent a demand

¶121

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶122

draft for wages of one month to the petitioners and also filed an application for approval for the action taken by the employer before the Industrial Tribunal. The application was opposed by the workmen contending that they had not been paid one month’s wages in accordance with law and also contending that, the date of demand draft disclose that they were obtained two months prior to the order of dismissal, the management has re-determined to dismiss them and therefore, the approval sought for should not be granted.

¶123

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the writ petitions preferred by the management in W.P.Nos.31116/1999 and 31117/1999, this Court remanded the matter to determine what is the amount paid and if the amount paid is less than the actual salary due to them, what is the amount which has to be paid to and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to record a finding of fact and then to proceed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law.

¶124

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶125

Perusal of the impugned orders in regard to the compliance as mandate under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act as the main contention of the petitioners is that one month’s salary has not been paid to the workman. Point No.2 raised by the Tribunal gives a finding that the salary of the workman on the date of dismissal was Rs.3,858.25/- and the workman claimed his wage was Rs.4,216/- and in light of the order passed to determine the actual salary of the workman, the workman had examined himself as WW.1 and in his evidence, he has stated regarding his wages. Ex.A-50 is the extract of subsistence allowance disbursement register for the month of November, 1996 pertaining to the respondent – management, the name of the workman has been shown and his basic and DA as could be seen from the order dated 06.02.2008, the Tribunal by considering the register and the basic salary and the variable dearness allowance, HRA and the medical allowance which was paid to the workmen, held that the workman’s total wages was

¶126

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶127

Rs.3,827.25/and whereas, management has paid Rs.3,893.25/- which is more than the wages and that there is compliance of Section 33 requirement, the perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the wages of the workman and held that there is compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

¶128

Regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry, perusal of the impugned order on the findings of the domestic enquiry and the proceedings, which have been filed before the Court would indicate that the workmen were represented, and proceedings were conducted by affording sufficient opportunity. The enquiry officer was an advocate who is well versed with conducting enquiries. The charges leveled against the workman was that:

¶129

(a) He had obtained sugarcane seeds worth Rs.5,519.25/- on 28.02.1993 from the factory for planting in the lands to an extent of 3 acres in his possession in Sy.Nos.38, 39, 40 and 41 of N.Nagenahalli Village.

¶130

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶131

(b) That as per the agreement dated 06.03.1993,

¶132

petitioner had agreed to supply 50 tones of sugar to the factory godown in the above lands.

¶133

¶134

(d) That he did not supply sugarcane as agreed to supply, however, he supplied 16.40 tones from other source, which is unauthorized.

¶135

(e) That he claimed for slips to the tune of 10,188.75 tones in the guise of supplying seeds to two farmers, as if the same was supplied by the management.

¶136

(f) That he had claimed transportation charges of Rs.507/- for having supplied seeds to two farmers on his bullock carts.

¶137

The charges were of fraud, dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or property vide model standing orders 22(d), commission of act subversive of discipline vide model standing orders 22(1). The proceedings were conducted by following the

¶138

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶139

principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer rejected the request of the workman to engage one C.S. Mohan to represent their case, on the ground that C.S.Mohan is not on the rolls of the factory as on the date he has been dismissed from service on 13.05.1994 and C.S. Mohan is not the co-employee of the petitioner’s workman and he is an outsider. The enquiry officer was examined as MW.1 who categorically stated that he initiated enquiry and provided opportunity to the workman to defend their case. Nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of MW.1 to indicate that there was no sufficient opportunity provided to the workman.

¶140

The complaint lodged by the petitioners under

¶141

Section 33(a) was on the ground that there is contravention of Section 33 during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the material on record would indicate that there is no evidence to indicate that there is any contravention under Section 33 of the ID Act and that the complainant has been transferred from

¶142

20 - NC: 2024:KHC:40825 WP No. 12998 of 2008 C/W WP No. 12999 of 2008 WP No. 28479 of 2009 AND 1 OTHER

¶143

Thondebhavi to Manchenahalli office and the distance between Thondebhavi to Manchenahalli is about 19 km. and he has been working in Thondebhavi right from the date of appointment. The transfer which is the incident to appointment cannot be and neither it is stated that the charges leveled against him is in respect of not accepting the transfer order. The complainant has failed to prove the contravention of Section 33 by the management and the present complaint was rightly rejected warranting no interference. Accordingly, the point framed for

¶144

consideration is answered against the petitioner and this Court pass the following:

¶145

ORDER

¶146

(i) Writ petitions are dismissed .

¶147

(ii) The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are hereby confirmed.

¶148

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶149

¶150

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri Aswathanarayana Reddy S/O Sri Muthappa Reddy v. M/S Nsl Sugars (Tungabhadra) Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Aswathanarayana Reddy S/O Sri Muthappa Reddy v. M/S Nsl Sugars (Tungabhadra) Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Venkatanarayanamurthy Vs Smt. Jayamma

B R Umashankararadhya Vs Shankara

Smt Shilpa D Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a Shivakumar Vs Karnataka State Transport Authority (Ksta)

Shri Marulasiddappa Ap Vs Management of M/S Essilor Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri B Vijaya Sai Vs the Government of Karnataka