Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. H T Basavaraj

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024WP/57478/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service dispute, the High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed a Labour Court award directing reinstatement. The court found a fake medical bill furnished during disciplinary inquiry proved fraud, holding the Labour Court erred in setting aside a dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

The award of the III Addl. Labor Court is quashed; the removal order is confirmed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs H T… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25217 WP No. 57478 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 57478 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

H.T.BASAVARAJ S/O THIPPESWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,

¶13

(a) SHANTHAMMA

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

W/O LATE H.T.BASAVARAJ,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶18

(b) H.B.SHILPANJALI D/O LATE H.T.BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶19

(c) H.B.LOKESH S/O LATE H.T.BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.29/1, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 7^TH CROSS, MAHESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 057.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.SRINIVASA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1[a TO c])

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:25217 WP No. 57478 of 2015

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

“Trust is core to the employer and employee relationship.”

¶28

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Srinivasa., learned counsel for respondents 1(A to C) have appeared in person.

¶29

The captioned Writ Petition is connected with Writ Petition No.57763/2018. This court vide order dated:02.07.2024 has declined to accept the memo for retirement filed by Sri.K.Srinivas.

¶30

2. The brief facts are these:

¶31

Sri.H.T.Basavaraj was a driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He submitted an application on 17.10.2007 seeking reimbursement of the amount of Rs.5,095.20/(Rupees Five Thousand Ninety-Five and Twenty Paise only) towards medical expenses spent by him. In that, a bill for a

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:25217 WP No. 57478 of 2015

¶34

sum of Rs.1,733/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Three only) issued by Poornima Pharma, 11^th Main, Vijayanagar, Bangalore was furnished. During verification, it was found that it was a fake bill hence, it was referred for investigation to the Security Officer, and an investigation was conducted by the Security Officer, who submitted a report dated:15.07.2010. The investigation revealed that the bill furnished by the workman for a sum of Rs.1,733/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Three only) was a fake certificate. Based on the report, the respondent was issued with Articles of Charge. He submitted his reply and denied the charges. He was subjected to disciplinary inquiry. The Corporation examined two witnesses. The Inquiry officer after conducting a detailed inquiry, submitted his findings holding that the charges were proven. The past conduct revealed that he had twenty-four cases. The disciplinary authority dismissed the workman from service on 06.06.2013.

¶35

The respondent raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.34/2013 on the file of III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labor Court vide award dated:30.07.2015 allowed

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:25217 WP No. 57478 of 2015

¶38

the claim petition and directed reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶39

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

¶40

The short point that would arise for consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

¶41

The issue falls around a narrow compass. This is a case of a fake medical reimbursement claim. A fake reimbursement claim is a claim for reimbursement of expenses that did not occur. The issue relates to a billing disagreement. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings on account of furnishing a fake medical bill for reimbursement. He applied for reimbursement of the amount by filing a necessary application and sought reimbursement of the amount of Rs.5,095.20/- (Rupees Five Thousand Ninety-Five and Twenty paise only). He furnishes a

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25217 WP No. 57478 of 2015

¶43

bill that is alleged to have been issued by Poornima Pharma, 11^th Main, Vijayanagar, Bangalore. The application was marked as Ex.M.2. A perusal of the same depicts that on page No.2 almost six columns show the names of medicines and the medicine alleged to have been purchased in Poornima Pharma on 29.09.2007 that relates to Inj. Lautus Optisit 1 x 04. The Corporation specifically contends that H.T.Basavaraj applied seeking reimbursement of the medical amount. However, the workman attempted to contend that he did not submit any application for reimbursement of the amount. In this Court also, he has adhered to the said contention and further goes to the extent of saying that the Corporation has created the application and the bill. The denial of the submission of the application for reimbursement and the allegation made against the Corporation is satisfactorily hopeless. The reason is apparent. In the reply to the Articles of Charge, he states that he has sought reimbursement of the amount for the medicines; and he has been using those medicines for several years which means that there is a clear admission by H.T.Basavaraj about applying for reimbursement of the amount. It is pivotal to note that in the cross-examination of the medical officer, he has supported the receipt and the application. Hence, it can be

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25217 WP No. 57478 of 2015

¶45

safely concluded that he has failed to substantiate the allegation. In my view, the Labor Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter.

¶46

Moreover, the Labor Court concludes that the medical bill is fake, however, erroneously proceeds further in the matter and sets aside the punishment order. This is erroneous. It is pivotal to note that Pharmacy is a profession associated with the medical profession in the responsible duties of preserving public health. Furthermore, there are formulated codes of ethics for the guidance of the pharmacist. Hence, the pharmacist must observe the rules and principles while dealing with their job. In the present case, one R.Jayashankar, the partner of M/s.Poornima Pharma wrote a letter to the Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer stating that the bill had not been issued by their Pharmacy. Despite this, the workman challenges pharmaceutical ethics. The outcome of facts and circumstances reveals that the workman furnished a fake medical bill and sought reimbursement. I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. For the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:25217 WP No. 57478 of 2015

¶49

reasons stated above, the award of the Labor Court is unsustainable in law and it is liable to be set aside.

¶50

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:30.07.2015 passed by the III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.34/2013 vide Annexure-K is quashed. The order of removal is confirmed.

¶51

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶52

Because of confirmation of the order of removal, the interim order granted by this Court, if any stands discharged, and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5.1

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. H T Basavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. H T Basavaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S Manjunatha

The Management of Vs Sri M.M.Chandrashekaraiah

The Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs Sri C N Amaresh

All India Trade Union Congress Vs State of Karnataka