The Divisional Controller. Bmtc vs Sri N Manjunath on 7 March, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller. Bmtc vs Sri N Manjunath on 7 March, 2018

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

                             BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

        WRIT PETITION NO.12907/2015 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BMTC,, EAST DIVISION ,
WHITE FIELD, BENGALURU
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
B.M.T.C.,
CENTRAL OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SANJEEV B L, ADV.)

AND:

SRI. N. MANJUNATH
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O GOLAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDALAGURKI POST
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 117
                                           ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.L SHEKAR, ADV.)
                                  2


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
AWARD DT.28.11.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. LABOUR
COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.49/2013 VIDE ANNX-C.


      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Respondent-workman was charge sheeted that he was having excess amount of Rs.650/- when he was checked and an enquiry was initiated by the appointing Enquiry Officer. Enquiry has been held and it is reported that the charge has been proved. The petitioner has been dismissed from service. He had approached the Labour Court, Bangalore in ID No.49 of 2013. The Labour Court, by its order dated 28th November 2014 set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the respondent into service without backwages with reduction of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The said order has been challenged in this petition.

2. The grounds taken by the petitioner is that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse and contradictory to law. The 3 issue has been framed by the Labour Court to effect as to whether the enquiry held is fair and proper. The said issue has been answered in favour of the management to the effect that the enquiry held is fair and proper. When it is held that the enquiry held is fair and proper, the Labour Court is seized of its power to improve by modifying the order of punishment. After holding due enquiry when it was found that the workman has committed offence and for the possession of excess amount he had no answer; the same has been proved in the enquiry. Before the Labour Court also the petitioner has examined documents Exhibits M1 to M17 and has led evidence of MWs 1 and 2. Despite the fact that the charge has been proved and even the Labour Court holding that the enquiry is fair and proper, the order of directing reinstatement is bad in law.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order. It is found from the order of the labour court that in answer to issue No.1 as to whether the enquiry is fair and 4 proper, the same has been answered in favour of the Management. Even then, the principle of probability is left with the Labour Court. The said power has been exercised. It is the reasons assigned by the Labour Court that the punishment of dismissal from service is exorbitant and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The charges have been examined and the respondent-workman possessing excess amount of Rs.650/- though confirmed, to the said allegation the punishment of dismissal from service is found to be most disproportionate. Under the circumstances, it is held the enquiry conducted is fair and proper; and punishment has been modified by directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service with reduction of two annual increments permanently and without any backwages. Hence, the petitioner is reinstated into service and entitled for current wages. In that view of the matter, the order of the Labour Court is based on established principles that there cannot be any punishment disproportionate to the gravity of offence. In my considered opinion, the order of the labour court is sound and proper and there is no error or perversity in the order of the 5 Labour Court. In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE lnn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court