Allowed

Sri C Mohan Kumar v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2024WP/38673/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC conductor removed and later dismissed sought probation placement with continuity and seniority per a Labour Court reinstatement award. The court quashed the corporation's endorsement and the probation appointment order that ignored his awarded continuity of service and directed grant of seniority within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 30.11.2015 and probation appointment order from 27.07.2000 quashed; respondent to grant continuity of service with seniority per IDA.No.61/1998 award within eight weeks.

Sri C Mohan Kumar Vs the Managing Director — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5183 WP No. 38673 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.38673 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. C. MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKAPPAIAH, CONDUCTOR, T.NO.4912, DEPOT NO.1, KSRTC, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, RESIDING AT NO.33/1, 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT –571 511. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR FOR SRI MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:5183 WP No. 38673 of 2016

¶18

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED BY R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-N TO W.P. AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking for the following prayers:

¶22

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement bearing No:KST/CKM/EST/C3/5044/15-16; 30.11.2015 passed by the 3^rd respondent vide Annexure-N to the writ petition under the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶23

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner to place him probation immediately after the completion of 180/240 days of service in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding and also by giving effect of the terms and conditions of the award dated 05.02.1999 passed by the Labour Court at Chikkamagaluru in IDA No:61/1998 vide Annexure-D and extend all other consequential benefits to the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5183 WP No. 38673 of 2016

¶25

c) ISSUE any appropriate writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court that deems fit to accord under the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶26

d) Issue a writ in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No.KST/CD/NIKA/NA/1839 issued by the 3^rd Respondent dated 27.07.2000 vide Annexure-F in so far as related to appointing the Petitioner on Probation from 27.07.2000 by ignoring the continuity and seniority of the Petitioner as awarded by the Labour Court at Chikkamangalur in IDA No.61/1998 at Annexure-D to the writ Petition under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

Heard Sri G.S Naveen Kumar, learned

¶28

counsel for Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

The petitioner was appointed as a

¶30

conductor on 22.11.1985, when he was working as a

¶31

badli conductor in respondent No.2 - Corporation, on certain charges of misconduct, the petitioner was

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5183 WP No. 38673 of 2016

¶33

removed from service vide order dated 31.01.1989, the legality of the order of removal passed by the respondent came to be assailed before the Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru, in IDA.No.339/1990, the Labour Court, by the impugned order, set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, however, without any benefit of continuity of service and back wages. When the petitioner was dismissed from service, respondent No.2, vide order dated 04.10.1989, had brought all the badli conductors on probation from 01.09.1989, those who have selected under the select list dated 22.11.1985, though the petitioner was eligible to be placed on probation on account of removal from service, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the probationary order dated 04.10.1989. Subsequently, for certain other misconduct committed by the petitioner, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.08.1998, the order of dismissal was

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:5183 WP No. 38673 of 2016

¶36

assailed in IDA.No.61/1998. The Labour Court, by an

¶37

award dated 05.02.1999, passed the following order:

¶38

“That the petition in IDA No:61/98 filed U/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act by one C.Mohan Kumar is here by allowed in part. That the impugned order of his dismissal bearing No:KARASA:HSNDY:SHISHA/ 1975/96/3611, dated 31-8-98, passed by the II party management is hereby set aside. The I Party is directed to reinstate the I party C.Mohan Kumar into service to his original post with continuity of seniority. However, the I party is NOT ENTITLED for back wages. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.”

¶39

(emphasis supplied)

¶40

The petitioner, in light of the order passed

¶41

by the Labour Court, was posted to Chikkamagaluru Depot on 20.08.1999, subsequently, respondent No.3 brought the petitioner on probation for a period of two years in the year 2000 and further extended the probationary period from 27.07.2002 to 26.04.2003. The respondent – Corporation, in light of the order

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5183 WP No. 38673 of 2016

¶43

passed by the Labour Court at Annexure – D, was legally bound to extend the benefit of continuity of service and seniority in terms of the award, however, the petitioner was brought on probation in the year 2002 and again extended the probation from 2002 to 2003. The representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Labour Court has not granted continuity of service and seniority. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure – N is highly unsustainable in light of the award passed by the Labour Court at Annexure –D, which emphasizes continuity of service and seniority. The impugned endorsement and the subsequent probationary period relating to the petitioner, ignoring continuity of seniority of the petitioner warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the endorsement issued is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:5183 WP No. 38673 of 2016

¶46

For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass

¶47

the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 30.11.2015 is hereby quashed and consequently, the order of appointing the petitioner on probation from 27.07.2000 is also quashed which is by ignoring the continuity and seniority of the petitioner as awarded in IDA.No.61/1998.

¶51

(iii) Respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner strictly as per the terms of the Labour Court award in IDA.No.61/1998 and to grant continuity of service with seniority in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

RAK

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri C Mohan Kumar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Mohan Kumar v. the Managing Director

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

Sri M Veerabhadrappa Vs the Managing Director

The Management of Institute Vs K.Nagabhusan

The Management of Emc Software and Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. Subramanian Kaleeshwaran

M/S Armstrong Design and Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner DIVISION-2

Mr. Yogeesha T N Vs Management of

Balappa Vs the Divisional Controller