Sri Rajakumar S Biradar Vs the Managing Director

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC), 85, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, NGO COLONY, SUDHAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR, (SECURITY AND VIGILANCE), AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, B.M.T.C CENTRAL OFFICES, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, NGO COLONY, SUDHAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR.

¶18

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BENGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC),

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:24229 WP No. 34652 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NORTH ZONE, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 01.04.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO. 478 OF 2019 (IN ID 13/2013) VIDE ANNX-E AND THE FINAL ORDER OF SUSPENSION PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DTD. 25/10.08.2019 VIDE ANNX-C BEARING BMC/KEK/SHISTU/KA-11/25719/795 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.03.2021 in Serial Application No.478/2019 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. Petitioner has also sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate him as driver cum conductor with all salary benefits and other allowances.

¶30

In terms of the impugned order dated 01.03.2021,

¶31

the Industrial Tribunal acting under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act, 1947' for short) has allowed the application and granted approval to the order dated

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24229 WP No. 34652 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

25.10.2019 passed by the respondent-Corporation dismissing the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 was passed exparte during COVID - 19 period where there was restriction imposed on account of COVID -19 pandemic. It is his further submission that the petitioner could not appear before the Industrial Tribunal on account of COVID -19 pandemic restrictions and in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court, the application could not have been considered on merits during the COVID - 19 pandemic.

¶36

It is also his further submission that even on merit, the order is not sustainable as the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is not fair and proper and alleged misconduct is not established.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentCorporation on the other hand would submit that the notice was sent to the address where the petitioner is residing and it was duly served. Petitioner has collected the wages paid under

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24229 WP No. 34652 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Section 33(2)(b) and having accepted the wages, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he was prevented from appearing before the Industrial Tribunal.

¶41

In addition, it is also urged that the order is valid and the Industrial Tribunal has rightly held that the enquiry is fair and proper and charges are proved and penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct alleged.

¶42

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶43

the bar and perused the records.

¶44

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the notice is not sent to him, it is noticed from the acknowledgement which is found in the file, the notice is delivered to the address where the petitioner is residing. However, it is also noticed that the signature on the postal acknowledgement does not tally with the signature of the petitioner.

¶45

It is not forthcoming as to who has signed the postal acknowledgment, but what is not disputed is the notice

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24229 WP No. 34652 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

is addressed to the place furnished by the petitioner at the time of employment. Thus, this Court is of the view that notice is duly served on the petitioner.

¶49

However, what is required to be noticed is that the proceeding was initiated in the year 2019 and notice is said to have been served in the month of December, 2019. From March, 2020, the lockdown was imposed on account of COVID19. The records would indicate that the trial was conducted on the application during COVID-19 pandemic.

¶50

It is not in dispute that the Supreme Court has issued directions not to conduct the trials and hearings during COVID-19 pandemic where the party has not appeared before the Court.

¶51

Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is prevented from contesting the serial application before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru on account of COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, it cannot be said that absence on the part of the petitioner before the Industrial

¶52