Karnataka High Court
Sri N Marudai vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... on 21 March, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.3530/2010(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
1 SRI N MARUDAI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O SRI. NATARAJAN,NO.210, 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN, NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
AUDIGODI, BANGALORE-560030
... APPELLANT
(By Sri: R SRINIVASA, ADV. )
AND :
1 BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE
BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
... RESPONDENT
(By Smt : H R RENUKA, ADV. )
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.8424/2008 DATED
2
09/03/2009.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
An enquiry was initiated against the appellant on the ground that he secured employment by producing a false education certificate. Article of charge was issued. The Enquiry Officer held the charge was proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority considering the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the explanation offered was of the view that he has misrepresented himself by producing a false education certificate. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service. The respondent raised a dispute u/s 10-4A of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper. However, on the perversity of the findings, the Labour court was of the view that the evidence led by the Management is insufficient to prove the charge and consequently set aside the order and directed to reinstate the workman without back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed 3 W.P.No.8424/2008 wherein by the order dt.9.3.2009, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order passed by the Labour court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent is in appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the certificate relied upon by the respondent has been produced only for the first time before the Labour court. That he did have any chance to counter the said documents. Hence it is prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge be interfered with.
3. On hearing learned counsels and on examining the material on record, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. He has produced certificates stating that he had studied from Class-1 to Class-7 in the B.K.A.M. Higher Primary School. The Principal of the said School has in his letter dt.9.4.2008 stated that the appellant has not studied either in the Primary school or Middle school from 1972-73. That the facts mentioned in the Transfer certificate as relied upon by the appellant are 4 false and bogus. Under these circumstances, relying on the said document on the basis of which the employment is procured cannot be accepted when the Principal himself has stated that the document is a false certificate. It is apparent that the employment granted on the basis of the document, cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that the certificate that was issued was printed in the year 1996. Further , the transfer certificate is issued in the year 1981. Hence on this ground also the finding of the Labour court was found fault with.
4. On the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that there are no error. Apparently the certificate produced by the appellant is not a true certificate. Under the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere. The learned Single Judge in terms of the letter dt.5.10.1998 has also stated that the School was started in the year 1989 and conducting classes from 8th, 9th and 10th Standard. Therefore, the transfer certificate stating that he studied from Class-1 to 7 appears to be a bogus one. Hence on 5 this ground also we do find any error committed by the Learned Single Judge.
5. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak