Ravikumar S/O. Gurubasappa Geddalamari Vs the Superintending Engineer

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 68567 OF 2011 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI RAVIKUMAR S/O. GURUBASAPPA GEDDALAMARI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. C/O. G.E. GEDDALMANI, JOSHI GALLI, AT AND POST: GULEDAGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (ELE) O AND M CIRCLE, HESCOM, NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM-590 016.

¶13

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMANKATTIMANI Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.11.27 12:55:00+0530

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), O AND M DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, AT AND POST: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, IN KID NO.6/2010 DATED 24/05/2011, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶24

This petition is filed by the workman challenging the award dated 24.05.2011 in KID No.6/2010 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi. In terms of the impugned award, the workman's claim is rejected. The workman challenged the order dated 31.07.2009 dismissing him from employment.

¶25

The petitioner/workman joined the employment under the respondent on 11.10.2007 as Assistant Lineman. On 31.07.2009, the petitioner/workman was terminated from employment. Admittedly, no enquiry was held before terminating the petitioner from employment.

¶26

Petitioner was terminated from employment on the premise that he has played fraud by producing fitness certificate though he was not fit to discharge the duty as Assistant Lineman.

¶27

The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Labour Court did not frame any issue relating to the

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

fairness of enquiry. However, following points were framed for consideration:

¶31

(i) Whether second parties respondents are justified in dismissing the First party workman from service from 31.07.2009.

¶32

(ii) If not, to what relief the parties are entitled to.

¶33

After considering the evidence, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not fit to join service which was one of the conditions imposed for joining the employment and the petitioner produced a medical certificate which was not valid and on examination by the competent Medical Board, it is found that the petitioner was not capable of discharging the duty attached to his employment, as such, 2nd party-management dismissed the petitioner from employment.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerworkman would urge that the order passed against the petitioner terminating him from employment is stigmatic and no stigmatic order could have been passed without holding necessary enquiry.

¶35

It is his further submission that he has produced the medical certificate dated 09.10.2007 which was issued by the competent

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

doctor of the Government Hospital and which certified that the petitioner is physically fit, as such, the termination order passed in the year 2009 is illegal and same is required to be set-aside in limine.

¶39

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had joined service on 12.10.2007 and on 09.11.2007 he sustained injury and underwent surgery, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner secured employment by practicing fraud. In addition to that learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that no issue is framed relating to the fairness of the enquiry, as such, the Labour Court could not have held that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact relating to his fitness.

¶40

In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance of the judgment of the Apex Court

¶41

in D K YADAV vs J M A INDUSTRIES LTD.¹ and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Belaluddin Khan v. CEO Managing Director and another² , it is urged that the said

¶42

1 1993 (3) SCC 259

¶43

2 W.P.No.102486/2024

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.4377/2025.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that he was not physically fit while joining the service and the Medical Board examined the petitioner and it is noticed that the petitioner has undergone surgery and he is not capable of discharging the duty of lineman and the contention of the petitioner that after joining the service, he sustained injury and has undergone surgery is not established by producing medical records. In case the petitioner had undergone surgery by the Orthopedic Surgeon, said surgeon should have been examined. The person who has issued the certificate is not the Orthopedic Surgeon and the author of the certificate is not examined.

¶48

The petitioner has not availed leave during the alleged surgery, as such, the alleged surgery is not established. Thus, it is to be construed that the petitioner had the injury even before joining the employment and the petitioner suppressed the material fact, is the submission.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶53

The records would reveal that the petitioner was removed from employment without holding any enquiry. The Labour Court did not frame any issue as to whether enquiry was fair and proper. Since the contention is raised that the petitioner could not have been removed from employment without holding necessary enquiry an issue ought to have been framed as to whether the enquiry if any, conducted is fair and proper.

¶54

However, what is required to be noticed is two points

¶55

were framed for consideration as noted above. It appears that the petitioner has understood the contention of the respondent and had also understood as to what he was required to prove before the Labour Court.

¶56

In support of the claim that he was injured after joining the service and thereafter, he has undergone surgery, the petitioner has led evidence. The respondent has cross examined the petitioner. The respondent has also led counter evidence.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

This being the position, this Court is of the view that non-framing of the issue relating to fairness of enquiry has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Petitioner having fully understood as to what he was required to prove has led evidence. Now the evidence that is led by the petitioner is required to be considered as to whether the petitioner's claim that he sustained injury after joining employment is established.

¶61

The petitioner to substantiate the contention that he suffered injury after joining employment has produced Ex.W.6 i.e., the certificate dated 13.11.2007. It is relevant to notice that the petitioner joined employment on 12.10.2007 pursuant to the appointment order dated 11.10.2007. The medical certificate at Ex.W.5 is thoroughly examined by the Labour Court. Labour Court has disbelieved the said document for two reasons:

¶62

(a) The author of the document i.e. Dr.C.K.Patil is not examined;

¶63

(b) Dr. C.K.Patil is not an Orthopedic Surgeon.

¶64

Since the petitioner claims that he has undergone surgery for shoulder fracture, the petitioner’s plea based on

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Ex.W.5 cannot be accepted. The Doctor who has issued the certificate i.e., Dr C K Patil has not been examined. More over, the said doctor is not an Orthopedic Surgeon. For this reason, the Labour Court has disbelieved the petitioner's claim that he has sustained injury after the appointment.

¶68

It is further relevant to notice that in case the petitioner has undergone surgery after joining the respondent/establishment, he would have applied for leave. He has not applied for leave. For how many days he was in hospital is not forthcoming. For how many days he was advised rest is also not forthcoming.

¶69

Though learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed application seeking leave and same was granted. No material is placed before the Court to show that he had applied for leave. This being the position, the contention that the petitioner sustained injury after the employment is unsustainable.

¶70

Respondent/establishment has produced the medical certificate issued by the competent Medical Board. The

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

competent Medical Board has held that petitioner is not capable of discharging the duty as Assistant Lineman. The appointment which is marked at Ex.W.1 itself would indicate that the petitioner is required to furnish the Medical Certificate relating to his fitness to discharge the job.

¶74

Thus, Court is of the view that petitioner is unable to establish that he was medically fit when he joined employment on 12.10.2007. Though the certificate dated 21.02.2008 issued by the petitioner would indicate that he was physically fit, that certificate does not carry any value given the fact that the subsequent certificate issued by the Medical board clearly indicates that petitioner is not fit to discharge the duty. Since the petitioner claims that he sustained injury after joining employment is not established, the Court has to take a view that the petitioner was not medically fit when he joined the employment.

¶75

Though learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there was no notice issued to the petitioner before terminating the petitioner from employment, the Court is of the view that the Labour Court has permitted the party to lead

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15713 WP No. 68567 of 2011

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

evidence and has concluded that the petitioner was not medically fit to join the establishment in the year 2007. Thus, the contention that there was no domestic enquiry by the respondent/establishment though appears to be true, cannot be stretched too far to remand the matter to the Labour Court or to the respondent/establishment to hold a domestic enquiry given the fact that the opportunity is given to the petitioner by the Labour Court.

¶79

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not come to the aid of the petitioner.

¶80