Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Road Transport ... vs G Loknath on 3 June, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
DATED THIS THE 3"' DAY OF JUNE 2c93% i jg, %
BEFORE " " ¢ "
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICES. Amy; ° f;
:mIrPE1rITIoNNo.13 exskrcfi;
Bangalore Metropoiitanfload . V
Txansport Corporatioin,
K.H. Road, Shatnhirtgar,f" . I _
Banga1o:re~560 €+'27,_.'"- ' '
Now reptd. By its Clnibf _ Petitioner.
(By Sri L. 'Adv; Adv.)
And:
I n
Ex-Drivca-.511 N§>{8,
' V »BMI'c,' Banga,bre¥-560
Now r/a No.5 %i.,.«3'*' 'cross,
' " Road; Mzidiwafa (Jai Beam Nagam),
.1 560 668. . . .. Respondent,
Shivarama & AKS, Advs.) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 &e2fi7eefj0ee'0 Constitution, praying to quash the award dated 16.1.2036' . This Writ Petition coming on far é 7 Group this day, the Court made the fqflowinxg: _ 2 This writ Petition is awe&'ci"0f0'ti1e 11} Additional Labour Court, 36.1.2006 in Ref.No.8l/1999 eeeey [I..ebour¥ has directed reinstatemem _md of eerviee but
2. resph working as a Driver with thee proceedings were ezleged that he has unauthorisedly remained I 45.10.1095 to 10.4.1996 i.e. for 6 mtmflm and 6 days. ' " jV»'Vi*!§'¢ie;1ied A regular donmtic enquiry was ondered in ° wleiehehe ey officer found that charge is proved. The enquiry Ewas accepted by the Corporation and the respondent was dismissed fi-om service on 21.6.1997. The appeal respondent challenghg the said adder was dismissed Z T The respondent raised a dispute before 'ofiaeee; : J 7 Since the conciliation failed, the tothe Labour com in Re£No.81i199Sva:$:'{*£;1+::e held that the enquiry is fair and aside the order of diszmeez meeeee of the backwages.
H if for the petitioner wouid contend that the _ Laboe ' ed in holding that the respondent has reasons for his absence fi-om 4.10.1995 to 4 f Edd. Hefiomer submitted that the evidence onhe patties has _;1:5t eioperiy appreciated by the Labour Court. Therefore, the i E 1 is 3.5 5} knew"
Lab0urCm1:twasnotrightinmodifyingtheorderof " H' 'V V' passed by the Corporation.
5. On the other hand, 1ea:nezi.coun§ea_for A sought to justify the impugned award
6. 1 have earefiglly of the leamed Counsel made at record.
7. Iikis that on account of his ill~ health, he had. subm :1 ecsee1e..;e%.ee1e;e. along with the medical cenificate to the SE' the concerned authorities, who had letter did M acknowledge the same and instead" _ leave letter or getting it sanctioned, a refien against him alleging his unauthorised ' ' flee specific case ofthe respondent that at the earliest tiene he had subm1t1ed' the leave application for availing VT 4.10.1995 on account of his ailment of Jatmdiee. The W,.,,...-.«»...
Depot Manager was examined in the enquiry. During _ examination, he has categorically stated than ifthe h'.%a'$'(':':'.§u):g.:J:i~§,{'.:aifi:(:)11--A J is submitted in oopiioaio, then only they wil:i_v-the é T and if the leave application is ooj; % acknowledgment would be given. In has admitted that no documents indicate that the respondent had sutvariittedIthe:.1eevev*--Vg;ip1i'eo:ioii.:v, i«ix.Ms is the document that the respondent fiom 4.10.1995 to 24.1.1995, oi 5.4.1996. The said certificates have been iss1fied'_'_by the Ciiior omoor, Victoria HospItal' . ._It is not case of that the said documenis were V. Considering the emine material on record, ». _ that proper explanation has been otfered the his absence. The finding of fact recordetf by is on appreciation ofmaterial on record and the _ not call for interference. Therefore, the Labour Court in directing' reinstatement of the respondent with E E:
X2 6 continuity of service but without backwages. It is not in dispute that the respondent has been reinstated during the pendency of this prmedings. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for backwages fiem the date of dismissal an the date Ofefgfbeieeeei J: --
8. There is no merit. in "
dimnissed. No casts. _ B1'43%'/462°'???