Dismissed

N B Ravi v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC29 Jul 2024WP/48989/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order upholding the dismissal of a BMC T C. workman for unauthorized. The court found the absence serious and based on a chequered history of repeated abs.</summary> Certain leave applications were not Considered by the. Authorities. The court held there was no warrant for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the impugned Labour Court order was confirmed.

N B Ravi Vs the Divisional Controller — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.48989 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

N.B. RAVI S/O BHADRAGIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.220, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BEHIND I.P.P. HOSPITAL, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, B.M.T.C. SOUTH DIVISION/REGION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. ... RESPONDENT

¶11

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY MRS. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 03.05.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.32/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶16

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

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

For the unauthorised absence of petitioner-workman, he was dismissed from service, reference was made by the workman with the claim statement under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act” for short) seeking to set aside the order of dismissal and to reinstate him with backwages and other consequential benefits.

¶19

The grounds made out in the claim statement are that, due to his illness, he remained absent to duty and requested the authorities to treat the absence period as leave and after recovering from his illness, he was permitted to report to duty on 08.06.2014, however, on the basis of the report of the depot manager, without considering the leave letter and medical documents, the authorities had proceeded to hold an enquiry by appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in a fair and proper manner and

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶21

held that the charges leveled against the workman was proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued an order of punishment of dismissal. It is the grievance of the workman that due to the order of dismissal, his only source of livelihood has been taken away and the act on the part of the respondent-Corporation is an act of victimization.

¶22

The respondent-Corporation appeared and filed

¶23

their counter denying the averments made in the claim statement. The defence raised by the Corporation is that, due to unauthorized absence of workman from 20.07.2013 to 08.10.2014, articles of charges were issued and not being satisfied with the reply given by the workman, enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report by affording sufficient opportunity to the workman holding that the charges leveled against the workman are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on going through the entire records, arrived at a conclusion that he

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶26

was an habitual absentee and has rightly dismissed him from service.

¶27

On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court

¶28

framed the following:

¶29

ISSUES

¶30

(i) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the second party corporation against the first party is fair and proper?

¶31

(ii) Whether the first party proves that the order or dismissal under No.BMTC/SD/AB/5103/1617 dtd.31.3.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside?

¶32

The Labour Court, on Issue No.1 regarding fairness of domestic enquiry held that the domestic enquiry held against the workman was not fair and proper and held against the management. On the question of victimisation, the Corporation examined the Enquiry Officer as MW.1 and one Harikrishna, establishment superintendent as MW.2 and the history sheet was marked as Ex.M-12, second show cause notice at Ex.M-13 and

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶34

dismissal order at Ex.M-14. The workman examined himself as WW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.W-1 to W-4. The Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that as per the history sheet, the workman was dismissed from service with effect from 12.11.2007 and as per the orders of the Court, he was reinstated on 03.07.2013 and again from 20.07.2013 to 08.06.2014 and from 15.06.2014, within 17 days of his reinstatement, he started remaining absent to duties without intimation and further held that the history sheet reveals that, on 14 occasions he was imposed punishment by withholding the increments, but the workman did not mend his ways and the Labour Court dismissed the claim statement. Being aggrieved, the workman is before this Court.

¶35

Heard Sri L. Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶38

the petitioner joined service of Corporation as a Conductor in the year 1994 and he had unblemished service record. The absence on the part of the workman was after leave application submitted as per Ex.D-7 and without considering that the workman submitted the leave application, the Labour Court by the impugned order has held that the workman has remained absent from his service for the said period unauthorisedly, which warrants interference by this Court.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation justifies the order passed by the Labour Court and takes this Court to the history sheet submitted by the disciplinary authority, which was considered by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order and submits that the same does not warrant any interference.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶42

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶43

contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶44

The Disciplinary Authority, on 01.08.2018, considering the absence of the workman and history sheet, dismissed the workman from service. The history sheet is culled out herein for reference:

¶45

PÀæ.¸ÀA	EAzÀ	ªÀgÉUÉ	MlÄÖ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ	vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀ wªÀiÁð£À
1	11/09/1998	25/09/1998	15	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
2	23/03/2000	10/04/2000	19	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 9 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
3	01/05/2000	25/07/2000	85	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
4	05/09/2000	14/12/2000	100	2 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
5	08/08/2010	08/10/2001	61	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
6	08/01/2001	12/02/2002	35	2 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAavÀªÁV vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
7	10/05/2002	04/07/2002	56	2 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
8	14/02/2003	23/04/2003	68	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
9	10/12/2003	18/02/2004	71	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 6 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶47

10	25/05/2004	22/06/2004	28	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
11	17/08/2004	11/03/2005	207	2 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
12	23/03/2005	13/07/2005	113	2 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
13	05/07/2004	02/08/2004	29	1 ªÁ.§rÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 6 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAavÀ«®èzÉ vÀqÉ»r¢zÉ
14	26/11/2005	12/11/2007		¢£ÁAPÀ 12/11/07 jAzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¸ÉÃªÉ¬ÄAzÀ“ªÀeÁ” UÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
15	20/07/2013	08/6/2014	324	¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt
16	15/6/2014	E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ	----	«ZÁgÀuÁ ºÀAvÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ

¶48

Ex.D-7 is the postal acknowledgement of speed

¶49

post, which according to the petitioner-workman is the leave application sent to the respondent – Corporation intimating his absence, the dates indicated in Ex.D7 is 30.07.2014, 12.07.2014, 27.06.2014 and 20.06.2014 and the unauthorized absence of the workman is for the period from 20.07.2013 to 08.06.2014, the postal acknowledgment is not pertaining to period of absence and the Labour Court has rightly considered that there is unauthorized absence by the workman, the unauthorized absence without intimating the employer is serious, an

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶51

employee is under an obligation not to be absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be work by the terms of his contract of service, absence without leave is misconduct in industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment, the absence of the petitioner-workman is not for the first time,

¶52

as could be seen from the chequered history that for nearly 14 occasions, he was put on notice for his absence by imposing minor punishment and in spite of affording sufficient opportunity he has not mend his ways, leaving no option for the disciplinary authority to dismiss the workman from service for his absence for a period of 324 days.

¶53

The order of dismissal has been rightly passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Labour Court, on considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, has held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief warranting no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶54

10 -

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:29847 WP No. 48989 of 2018

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(a) Writ petition is dismissed.

¶58

(b) The impugned order passed by the Labour Court is

¶59

hereby confirmed.

¶60

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

N B Ravi v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N B Ravi v. the 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

C S Mohan Vs the Management of Siruguppa Sugars

Sri P S Kempaiah Vs Union of India

Managemnt of M/S Aisin Nttf Pvt. Ltd. Vs Workmen of M/S Aisin Nttf Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Govinda Bin Late K v Krishnappa Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Mallikarjuna Vs M/S Adc India Communications Ltd.

Karnataka Trade Union Centre Vs the State of Karnataka