Allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri S Manjunatha

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/15933/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court reviewed a Labour Court award reinstating an employee dismissed for unauthorized absence. The employee has engaged in multiple absences. The Court found the Tribunal erred in finding the punishment disproportionate without considering persistent absences and lack of participation in inquiry. The Court quashed the award and confirmed removal.

What did the court decide?

The writ of certiorari is ordered; the Labour Court award dated 13.08.2014 is quashed; the order of removal is confirmed.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24936 WP No. 15933 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 15933 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., BANGALORE-027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. S.MANJUNATHA S/O P.SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.28, 7^TH WARD, GANGANAMIDDI, APMC YARD, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶14

(BY SRI. L.SHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:24936 WP No. 15933 of 2015

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.L.Shekar., learned counsel for the

¶22

respondent have appeared in person.

¶23

The short facts are these:

¶24

The respondent was working as a Helper-A in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duty with effect from 31.03.2010 onwards. He was issued with Articles of Charge dated 14.08.2010, but he did not choose to reply. He came under disciplinary proceedings. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted the report holding that the charges are proven. Based on the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and on an independent assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary authority dismissed the respondent from service on 11.06.2012.

¶25

The workman challenged the order of dismissal by raising a dispute. The same was referred to the Labor Court, Mysore for adjudication in I.D.No.33/2012. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 13.08.2014 set

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24936 WP No. 15933 of 2015

¶27

aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement with a reduction of one annual increment with all consequential benefits without back wages. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of a Writ Petition.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶29

Counsel Sri. Hareesh Bhandary.T., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the order of removal dated 30.12.2019. Counsel, therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed.

¶30

The oral submission made on behalf of the Corporation and the memo is placed on record.

¶31

The short question that would arise for my consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:24936 WP No. 15933 of 2015

¶34

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The workman came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings. It is

¶35

pivotal to note that he did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. The Labour Court observed that the respondent stayed away from the work without prior leave; and affirmed the act of misconduct, however, erroneously went ahead and held that the dismissal order was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. This is unsustainable. The reason is simple. When the act of misconduct is held to be proved; what is required to be considered is only victimization. In the present case, the workman was involved in almost twenty-seven cases of unauthorized absence. The Disciplinary Authority takes note of the material evidence on record and passes the order of punishment i.e., dismissal from service. Furthermore, the workman did not choose to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Hence, it can be safely concluded that there is no victimization.

¶36

Furthermore, this Court vide order dated 02.12.2015, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. The Corporation reinstated the respondent on

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24936 WP No. 15933 of 2015

¶38

25.03.2016. Even after the reinstatement, the respondent remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 16.12.2016 onwards as the same is evident from the Order of Removal dated 30.12.2019. The conduct of the respondent depicts that he is not interested in discharging his professional duties diligently. Therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy, much less misplaced sympathy. I may venture to say that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. Therefore, I deem it proper to quash the award of the Labour Court.

¶39

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 13.08.2014 passed by the Court of the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.33/2012 vide Annexure-F is quashed. The order of removal is confirmed.

¶40

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:24936 WP No. 15933 of 2015

¶43

Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

MRP

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

The Divisional Controller v. Sri S Manjunatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri S Manjunatha

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

Karnataka State Road Vs a Ramakrishna

Shivaramachary Vs Management of Fouress Engineering Limited

Shilpa D Raj Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

Raksha Management and Protection Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs All India Trade Union Congress Reg

Omkar Offset Printers Vs All India Trade Union Congress (Reg)

M/S Drl Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri V.N. Murthy