Karnataka High Court
Shri C Prashanth vs The Mangement Of M/S J.K.Tyres And on 17 July, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION NO.5237/2012 (L-TER)
BETWEEN :
SHRI C PRASHANTH
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/A NO.31, 6TH MAIN,
13TH CROSS, V.V.MOHALLA
MYSORE. ...PETITIONER
( BY SRI.S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, FOR
S B MUKKANNAPPA & ASSTS., ADVS., )
AND :
THE MANGEMENT OF M/S J.K.TYRES AND
INDUSTRIES LIMITED
VIKRANTH TYRE PLANT,
(FOMERLY M/S VIKRANTH TYRES
LIMITED, METAGALLI,
K.R.S ROAD,
MYSORE-570016 ...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR
COURT, MYSORE PERTAINING TO REF. NO.133/98. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.2.1995 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
COURT, MYSORE IN REF.NO.133/98 ON ISSUE NO.1 VIDE
2
ANNEXURE-K, ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned award dated 19.9.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore in Ref.No.133/1998 produced at Annexure-N and consequential relief.
2. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence for a long period. According tot he charge memo, he unauthorisedly remained absent from 26.3.1991 to 8.7.1991, 12.8.1991 to 8.3.1992 and from 13.7.1992 upto the order of dismissal. The Enquiry Officer gave a positive finding holding that the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent and recommended for dismissal of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the enquiry report and other material found that, the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period and for his habitual absentism, passed an order of dismissal, against which, a reference was sought and on reference, the Labour Court has passed an award 3 dismissing the reference. As against the dismissal of the reference, this petition has been filed.
3. Sri.Mukkannappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the Labour Court has ignored the consideration of the proportionality of the punishment. Petitioner has given explanation for his absence. He has produced the documents to show that he was suffering from paralysis and also he has undergone operation. These mitigating circumstances have not been considered by the Labour Court.
4. The Labour Court elaborately has considered all the documents produced by the petitioner. Amongst the documents produced by the petitioner, Exs.W4, W5, W1(b), W1(c), W.15, W.16, W.17, W.17(c), W.1(a)(b)(c), 9(h), W.40, 46, 47, 48 to 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67 and 68, they do not relate to the period for which the charge memo was issued. Further, it has also considered that earlier also, petitioner had remained absent and he had suffered an order of 4 suspension and also punishment.
5. Apart from this, though the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that,the petitioner had suffered paralysis stroke, the document for the relevant period - Ex.W31 does not show that he was suffering from paralysis. These documents have been considered by the Labour Court and it is also found that there is no mitigating circumstances to reduce the punishment of dismissal.
6. In my opinion, the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and does not call for interference.
Hence, the petition fails and same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-