Disposed

B.D.Malleshappa v. Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024WP/451/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged a Labour Court award denying continuity of service and increments after reinstatement following a domestic inquiry. The High Court rejected the pecuniary denial but directed reinstatement with continuity of service only for terminal benefits.

What did the court decide?

Legislative direction to the Corporation regarding continuity of service for terminal benefits only.

B.D.Malleshappa Vs Divisional Controller — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26617 WP No. 451 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 451 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B.D.MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O DASAPPA, WORKING AS HEAD ARTISAN, (AUTO BODY BUILDER), RESIDENT OF BENTENAHALLI AT AND POST BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.S.B.MUKKANNAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE) THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:26617 WP No. 451 of 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶21

2. The brief facts are these:

¶22

The petitioner - B.D.Malleshappa was appointed as an Artisan in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with articles of charge based on the report of the Divisional Works Superintendent stating that he remained absent for duties from 31.03.2015 and onwards. On 15.07.2015, he submitted an application seeking permission to report to duty. The Corporation permitted him to report to duty on 22.07.2015. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. He was dismissed from service on 13.06.2016.

¶23

The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru in I.D.A.No.14/2016. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated:28.09.2018 set-aside

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26617 WP No. 451 of 2020

¶25

the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, without back-wages, without continuity of services and without consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of passing the award by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner has questioned the award in so far as it relates to the denial of other benefits and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions.

¶27

Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and justified in setting aside the order of punishment, however on an erroneous approach, held that the petitioner is not entitled for back-wages, continuity of services and consequential benefits and withheld three annual increments with cumulative effect. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:26617 WP No. 451 of 2020

¶30

By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., justified the award of the Labour Court. She argued by saying that the workman was involved in almost eleven cases of absenteeism in the past. Hence, the Labour Court is justified in denying the other benefits.

¶31

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶32

Counsel Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., submits that the petitioner restricts his prayer only for continuity of service for the purposes of terminal benefits.

¶33

The oral submission made by learned counsel

¶34

Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., is placed on record.

¶35

The simple point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶36

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that on a preliminary issue, the Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper, hence the parties led

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:26617 WP No. 451 of 2020

¶39

evidence on the merits of the case. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Labour Court is justified in setting aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement. However,

¶40

denied other benefits. The Corporation contended that the denial of other benefits is just and proper, since the workman was involved in eleven absenteeism cases. The said submission cannot be accepted. The Labor Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly ordered reinstatement. In my view, the order of reinstatement should be with continuity of service only for the purposes of terminal benefits. Therefore, the Corporation is hereby directed to consider the order of reinstatement with continuity of service only for the purposes of terminal benefits.

¶41

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

B.D.Malleshappa v. Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.D.Malleshappa v. Divisional Controller

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 P Venkatesh Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Ganapathi G R Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri P.R. Shiva Reddy Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri P P Mohanan Vs M/S.Kiran Power Rectification Services

B Srinivasappa Vs the Managing Director

M/S I2GEN India LLP Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii