Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs L Ramamurthy on 6 July, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
W.A. No.16379/2011 (L-K)
BETWEEN :
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TUMKUR DIVISION
TUMKUR BY ITS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC, K H ROAD,
BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT
( By SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.)
AND :
L RAMAMURTHY
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
ADULT, C/O ERABENNAPPA
RETIRED TEACHER, HOSAHUDYYA,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL. ...RESPONDENT
( By Sri. LAKSHMAN RAO, ADV. FOR C/R-1)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this
writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated
2
02.08.2011 in W.P. No. 5871/2010 and also the award of the Principal
Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref. No. 9/2008 dated 24.10.2009
(Annexure 'A') in so far as it relates to the direction to pay 30% of the
backwages to the Workman.
This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
V. SURI APPA RAO. J., delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 2 nd August 2010 in W.P. No.5871/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
The respondent is working as Conductor in the appellant - Corporation. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 26.06.2003 to 28.07.2003 and also from 16.09.2003 to 16.10.2003 without prior permission or sanction of leave. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the respondent are proved. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority by order dated 21.12.2004 held the respondent is guilty of the charges and passed an order dismissing the respondent from service. Thereafter, the matter is referred to the Labour Court 3 by an order dated 24.03.2008 for adjudication before the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore, which has been registered as Reference No.9/2008. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court also held that the enquiry initiated against the respondent is fair and proper. Ultimately, recorded a finding that the absence of the respondent was not unauthorised and refused to accept the contention of the appellant that the respondent suffered penalties on 15 occasions in the past. Therefore, the Labour Court ultimately held that there was no justification for the order dated 21.12.2004 of dismissal of the respondent and directed the appellant - Corporation to reinstate the respondent with 30% of the backwages and other benefits.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant - Corporation filed the writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 24.10.2009. The learned Single Judge considering the material and the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court and consequently the writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected as devoid of merit. The appellant therefore filed this appeal challenging 4 the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. The respondent contended before the Enquiry Officer and also Labour Court that his absence was not unauthorised and that he was taken treatment for typhoid and he produced the leave letter and medical certificate and also contended that the Depot Manager also recommended leave on medical grounds. Therefore, considering the material placed before the Labour Court, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court observed that the absence of the respondent was not unauthorised and passed the order directing the appellant - Corporation to reinstate the respondent with 30% of the backwages.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the documents filed by the respondent were not produced before the Enquiry Officer and therefore the absence of the respondent was treated as unauthorised by the Enquiry Officer. However, considering the documents filed by the respondent about the treatment for typhoid along with medical certificate issued by the competent Medical Officer, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was justified in holding that the absence of the respondent was not 5 unauthorised and he has also further justified in passing the order of reinstatement with 30% of backwages.
6. However, there was a delay of 4 (four) days in referring the matter to the Labour Court. Though the respondent was dismissed in the year 2004, the reference was in the year 2008. Therefore, we are of the view that it is just and necessary in the interest of justice to allow the writ appeal in part awarding 30% of the backwages from the date of reference i.e. from 24.03.2008 not from the date of dismissal. The rest of the order passed by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge are confirmed.
7. With the above modification, this writ appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Rbv*