Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Nwkrtc, vs Annasaheb S/O Shivarudra Latte, on 9 July, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 77823/2013 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC,
BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM,
THE PEITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADV.)
AND
ANNASAHEB S/O SHIVARUDRA LATTE,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O HIREKOD, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENT
----------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
AWARD DATED 21.01.2012 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID NO.111/2011 AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE KID NO.111/2011
FILLED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
PRESIDING OFFICER ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI THE
COPY OF THE SAME IS AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. Respondent herein was issued with Articles of Charges on 06.02.2001 alleging that he had altered the way-bills while discharging his duty as a Conductor on 08.09.2000 in Route No.107. In reply, the workman admitted the guilt and stated that it was on account of poor light and due to inadvertence. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the answer of the workman appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry held that workman was guilty of charges. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice enclosing copy of the enquiry report. After :3: considering the reply furnished by the workman, the Disciplinary Authority passed final order on 04.08.2009 by removing his name from the list of trainee conductors and forfeited his right of appointment by taking into consideration the past history also.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority, workman raised a dispute under Section 10 (4- A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in KID No.111/2011 before the Addl. Labour Court, Hubli. Corporation contested the said claim petition by filing detailed statement of objections. Though several grounds were urged in the claim petition, the principal contention was there has been non-compliance of Section 33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act namely when ID No.148/2005 raised by the Trade Union of which the petitioner is a member was pending consideration before the Industrial Tribunal which related to the various demands of the employees of the Corporation including the present Corporation namely :4: NWKRTC, the order of removal of the workman for alleged misconduct came to be passed without obtaining permission from the said Tribunal and as such, the order of removal is bad in law. The Labour Court accepted the said plea and held that the dismissal of the workman from service without obtaining permission of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act is non-est and is liable to be set aside by relying upon the judgment in the case of JAIPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKASA BANK LIMITED VS. RAM GOPAL SHARMA AND OTHERS reported in (2002 (1) LLJ 834).
5. Mr. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for Corporation would contend that Labour Court ought to have brushed aside the said contention of the workman which related to non-obtaining the approval of Industrial Tribunal which was adjudicating the dispute I.D.No.148/2005 on the ground that contravention of :5: provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) would not be applicable to a dispute raised under Section 10 (4-A) of the I.D. Act.
6. It is not in dispute that similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.24118- 120/2009 and connected matters where a plea regarding non-obtaining permission by the Corporation from the Industrial Tribunal in pending I.D.No.148/2005 came to be considered by formulating following points for consideration:
" Whether the order of discharge or dismissal passed against a workman without complying Section 33 (2) (b) would be non-est?
OR
" Whether management/employer need not
seek approval of Labour Court while
discharging or dismissing a workman as required under proviso to clause (b) of sub section (2) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that such aggrieved workman has a remedy under :6: Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?"
7. The points so formulated came to be answered in favour of the workman by holding that an order of discharge or dismissal passed against a workman without obtaining permission under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D. Act would be non-est and respondent herein being similarly placed would also be entitled to the same relief, which has been extended by the Labour Court. Undisputedly, Corporation has not obtained permission from the Industrial Tribunal which was trying the dispute in I.D.No.148/2005 at the time of passing the order of dismissal against the respondent-workman. The law laid down by this Court in W.P.Nos.24118-120/2009 and connected matters referred to herein supra would squarely cover the facts on hand. Further, the said judgment has been affirmed in W.A.No.5738/2012 on 12.03.2013. :7:
8. Hence, I am of the considered view that judgment and award passed by the Tribunal accepting the plea of the workman cannot be found fault with. As such, writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly it stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Jm/-