Allowed

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri Manjunatha L

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/19409/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BMTC challenged the Labour Court award reinstating a removed trainee driver-cum-conductor who had been absent without sanctioned leave. The High Court held the absence was unauthorised since no leave was sanctioned and noted post-reinstatement dismissal, set aside the Labour Court order, and confirmed the disciplinary authority's removal.

What did the court decide?

Labour Court reinstatement award set aside; Disciplinary Authority's removal order confirmed.

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Manjunatha L — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37324 WP No. 19409 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.19409 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, B.M.T.C., NORTH DIVISION, YESHAVANTHAPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶9

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI MANJUNATHA .L S/O. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT DODDERI VILLAGE, BELLAVI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 123. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF.NO.22/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 07.07.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF.NO.22/2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37324 WP No. 19409 of 2019

¶17

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

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

Assailing the legality and correctness of the order passed in Ref.No.22/2016 dated 07.07.2018 on the file of the Prl. Labour Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court” for short), whereby, the reference made by the respondent was allowed and the petitioner – Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service, other consequential benefits for the purpose of terminal benefits, however, the backwages was denied.

¶20

Respondent was appointed as a trainee drivercum-conductor in the petitioner – Corporation, for an unauthorised absence from 25.06.2013 without obtaining leave/permission, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was conducted, enquiry officer submitted report holding that the charges leveled against the respondent was proved, the Disciplinary Authority considering the enquiry report and the material placed before it, removed the

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37324 WP No. 19409 of 2019

¶22

name of the respondent from the list of the trainee on 26.09.2014. The respondent raised dispute before the Labour Court by filing claim statement under Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short) seeking to set aside the order of removal dated 26.09.2014 as illegal and directed for reinstatement into

¶23

his original post with consequential benefits for the purpose of terminal benefits. The claim of the respondent was that he had fallen ill in the third week of June and in October 2013, due to his illness, he could not report to duty and he had sent a leave letter to the Depot for sanction of leave on medical ground and the same was not accepted by the Corporation, enquiry was conducted holding that he had been in unauthorized absence without considering that he was not well during the said period and that the order of the disciplinary authority, removing him from service is illegal and unjustified.

¶24

3. The Corporation filed counter statement, inter

¶25

alia, contending that, the selection of the respondent was

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37324 WP No. 19409 of 2019

¶27

as a trainee driver-cum-conductor and without obtaining any prior sanction or approval and without submitting any leave letter, he has remained unauthorisedly absent from duty from 25.06.2013 and the disciplinary authority has rightly considered the entire material and that the enquiry held was fair and proper and the removal from service was justified.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation files a memo stating that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 31.10.2019, the corporation reinstated the respondent into service and subsequently, the respondent has remained absent and disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he has been again dismissed from service on 19.07.2022 for his unauthorized absence.

¶29

The Labour Court arrives at a conclusion that the leave letter was submitted by the respondent, which is at Ex.W.1 and the Corporation has not considered the material documents, which were according to the Labour

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37324 WP No. 19409 of 2019

¶31

Court sufficient grounds for the absence of the respondent from duty. The other reason for the Labour Court to allow the claim statement was that the Corporation had filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, which clearly indicates that the respondent was the workman of the Corporation. The Labour Court failed to consider that, when an employee is required to be present at the place of work of the employer, he has to be present and when the workman wants to be absent from his place of work, he has to submit a leave letter, merely submitting a leave letter is also not sufficient, the leave letter has to be accepted by the employer and thus, the leave letter without sanction by the employer is no ground for the employee to contend that he was not willfully absent, until the circumstances prevailing upon the employee from remaining absent on his appointed day of work.

¶32

In the instant case, though it is contended by the respondent that he had submitted the letter for sanction of leave, the leave letter submitted was not

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37324 WP No. 19409 of 2019

¶34

accepted, meaning to state that there was no leave sanctioned to the respondent and in that circumstances, remaining absent from duty is nothing, but an unauthorised absence, and moreover, the respondent was a trainee of the Corporation and the appointment order of the trainee was with several terms and conditions, more particularly, the corporation had reserved reasons for terminating the trainee from service. The absence of the respondent from his work was unauthorized, which was failed to be considered by the Labour Court. The Labour Court also lost sight of the history sheet which was marked at Ex.M.4, which clearly indicated that on three occasions, the respondent had remained absent willfully. At this stage, it is necessary to state that pursuant to the order passed by this Court directing to reinstate the respondent, the respondent has remained absent, on account of which enquiry was conducted and he has been removed from service, which is brought to the notice of this Court by way of a memo. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is not entitled for any benefit of

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:37324 WP No. 19409 of 2019

¶37

reinstatement or other benefits. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The impugned order passed by the Labour Court is set aside .

¶41

(iii) The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority stands

¶42

confirmed.

¶43

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri Manjunatha L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri Manjunatha L

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

Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri B Venkatesh

M/S Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkere Karkhane Ltd. Vs Sri Ramachandra

Manjegowda Vs Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

Emco Limited Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

M/S. Tokai Rubber Auto Parts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of Karnataka

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs v Krishnappa