The Management of Nekrtc, Vs Balappa S/O Yamanappa Tondihal

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2010 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID NO.1/2006 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the order dated 06.04.2010 passed in K.I.D.No.1/2006 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli¹ .

¶27

The relevant facts in a nutshell are that the workman was appointed as a driver in the petitioner/Corporation in the year 1980. A charge sheet was issued against him, alleging unauthorised absenteeism with effect from 12.05.2002. The workman submitted his reply, stating that he was unwell during the said period and produced relevant medical records in support of his claim. It is further contended by the workman that his absence was not a deliberate one. The Enquiry Officer conducted

¶28

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10892 WP No. 61997 of 2011

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the enquiry and recorded a finding that the workman remained absent unauthorisedly from 12.05.2002 to 10.06.2003 i.e., for a total period of 395 days, without submitting any leave application or obtaining prior permission from his superior officer. The Disciplinary Authority arrived at the conclusion that the case of the workman warrants major penalty of dismissal from service with effect from 22.09.2005. Being aggrieved, the workman raised a

¶32

dispute by filing a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987² . The Tribunal, by its order dated 06.04.2010, partly allowed the petition filed by the workman and passed the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

“The petition is partly allowed.

¶35

The dismissal order passed by the respondent dated 22.09.2005 is modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

¶36

The respondent is directed to re-instate the petitioner into service within one month from the date of publication of the award with continuity of service.

¶37

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10892 WP No. 61997 of 2011

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Send a copy of this award to the Government for its due publication.”

¶42

Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present petition.

¶43

Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶44

At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, pursuant to the order dated 06.04.2010, the workman died on 28.05.2010, and that in the present petition, his legal representatives namely, his wife and children have been brought on record.

¶45

Although various grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contentions put forth in the present writ petition, having regard to the fact that, the order of dismissal dated 22.09.2005 was modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by the Tribunal, keeping in mind the fact that the workman died less than two months of passing of the impugned award dated 06.04.2010, this Court refrain deems it appropriate to from exercising its

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10892 WP No. 61997 of 2011

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction contained under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶49

In view of the aforementioned, the present writ petition is disposed off by directing the petitioner/Corporation to pay the requisite service benefits vis-à-vis the deceased workman to his wife-respondent No.1A within three months from today.

¶50

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶51

PMP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

The Management of Nekrtc, v. Balappa S/O Yamanappa Tondihal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Nekrtc, v. Balappa S/O Yamanappa Tondihal

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

Smt. Lakshmi Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

M/S. Haj S.R. Umachagi @ Co. Coen Road, Hubli Vs Basheer Ahmed S/O. Nabisab Muddebehal

Shanawax S/O. Srfaraj Ahamed Ummachagi Vs Basheer Ahmed S/O. Nabisab Muddebihal

Panchakshrayya Alias Babumestri Iremath Vs the Senior Labour Inspector

Sundarao S/O. Shikhamani Jakkam Vs the Management

Suresh S/O. Timmanna Gaonkar Vs the Divisional Controller