Sri. C Y Govindaraju Vs the Management of

SRI. C.Y.GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. SRI. YALAKAPPA, R/AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, BEHIND TALUK OFFICE, KUNIGAL, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572130.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJAS AND: KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF THE MANAGEMENT OF KARNATAKA M/S. ESSEN AND COMPANY, NO.6, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU - 560055. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DR. J.RAJARAM.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.R.ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47276 WP No. 46702 of 2017 C/W WP No. 21805 of 2017

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

IN WP NO. 21805/2017

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. ESSEN & COMPANY #106, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BENGALURU - 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR DR. J. RAJARAM.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI.ANAND K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

MR. C.Y.GOVINDARAJU, MAJOR, S/O. SRI. YALAKAPPA, VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, BEHIND TALUK OFFICE, KUNIGAL, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶27

...RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI. V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶29

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

¶30

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47276 WP No. 46702 of 2017 C/W WP No. 21805 of 2017

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

IN W.P.No.46702/2017

¶35

Sri.V.S.Naik., counsel for the petitioner and

¶36

Sri.K.R.Anand, counsel for the respondent, have appeared in person.

¶37

IN W.P.No.21805/2017

¶38

Sri.Anand.K.R., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.S.Naik., counsel for the respondent, have appeared in person.

¶39

2. The petition averments are as follows:

¶40

M/s.Essen and Company is a registered Company under the provisions of the Companies Act. The Company is a Government of India-approved Inspection Agency as Analytical Chemist and Assayers/ Cargo Inspectors, and Surveyors. It provides services in the field of Analysis of Ores and Minerals, Water and Effluent, Feeds and Fertilizers, Metals and Alloys, and samples for its Chemical composition. The respondent was appointed as a Trainee - Chemist w.e.f. 23.07.2007 and was confirmed in the said post w.e.f. 01.05.2008. The last drawn salary of the respondent was Rs.5,960/- per month. It is

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47276 WP No. 46702 of 2017 C/W WP No. 21805 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

alleged that he had indulged in certain grave acts of misconduct; hence, he was issued a memo of charges. He submitted his written explanation. As the explanation was not satisfactory, an inquiry officer was appointed, and a domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer submitted a report holding that the respondent is guilty of the misconduct. The second show-cause notice was issued. The workman submitted the reply. The reply was not satisfactory, and he was dismissed from vide order dated 19.12.2012.

¶44

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the workman raised the dispute in I.D.No.10/2013. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by management was fair and proper. The Labor Court passed the award on 06.12.2016 and allowed the claim statement in part, and the reinstatement was refused. The management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the workman within three months from the date of publication of the award. It was also stated that if the payment is not made, it will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. Assailing the

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47276 WP No. 46702 of 2017 C/W WP No. 21805 of 2017

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

award of the Labor Court, the Management and the Workman have filed the Writ Petition.

¶48

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶49

The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The respondent came under disciplinary proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment that he was dismissed from service. When the domestic inquiry is held as proper and legal, what is required to be considered is victimization and perversity. The respondent did not establish a prima facie case for victimization. Furthermore, Labor Court did not find that the dismissal was strikingly disproportionate in any manner, and erred in law by awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In the present case, there is no victimization and perversity. The Apex Court, in many cases, settled the law that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, the scope of judicial review is limited. The management contends that the respondent hardly served for about five years, and having regard to the length of service,

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47276 WP No. 46702 of 2017 C/W WP No. 21805 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

this Court deems it proper to vary/modify the award from five

¶53

lakhs rupees (₹5,00,000) to four lakhs rupees (₹4,00,000). This Court directs the Management to pay a lump sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs only) excluding the interest within six weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, the lump sum amount includes all legal dues. In case the Management does not pay the amount as ordered by this Court within six weeks, it shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till payment.

¶54

Resultantly, W.P.No.46702/2017 filed by the workman is dismissed, and W.P.No.21805/2017 filed by the Management is allowed in part .

¶55

Because of the disposal of the Writ Petitions, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and the interim direction, if any, stands discharged.

¶56

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶57

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri. C Y Govindaraju v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C Y Govindaraju v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M S Shashikumar Vs Labour Court

N T Rahamathulla Khan Associates Vs the Labor Officer

Sri. C. C Dhanagonda Vs the Assistant General Manager

Sri Harish Chander Vs Central Silk Board

The Oxford Educational Institutions, Vs Controlling Authority

Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner