Karnataka High Court
North East Karnataka Road Transpor ... vs Mohammed Abdul Nayeem on 24 September, 2012
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO.4853 OF 2006(L-KSRTC)
Between:
North East Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation,
Bellary Division, Bellary,
By its Divisional Controller,
Represented by its Chief Law Officer. ..PETITIONER
(By Sri P P Hiremath, Adv)
And:
Mohammed Abdul Nayeem,
L.C.No.516, R/at Ward No.24,
Door No.19, Yaseen Street,
Near Masjid, Coul Bazaar, Bellary. ..RESPONDENT
(By Sri Gode Nagaraja, Adv)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the award
2
dt.1.3.2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in ID No.78/2002
vide Annexure-G.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner-Management has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in I.D.No.78/2002 at Annexure 'G'.
2. Respondent was working as a conductor. Alleging several misconduct, charges were framed against him and after enquiry, seven punishment orders were passed against him by the disciplinary authority, against which, on failure of conciliation, matter has been referred to Industrial Tribunal which has set aside the punishment orders passed. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard.
3
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner- Management, when the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that enquiry held is fair and proper, in so far as imposition of punishment is concerned, it could have remanded the matter to impose minor penalty in stead, holding that a major punishment has been imposed, it has set aside the entire punishment orders passed, which is illegal.
5. According to the respondent-workman, in respect of six cases, the Management without holding enquiry has passed the punishment order mechanically without application of mind, which is illegal and in one of the cases out of seven, the enquiry held is not fair and proper. The Tribunal, rightly taking note of the same, has set aside the punishment orders passed. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) 1997(4) KLJ 524 in the case of Hubert Lobo Vs. Labour Court, Mangalore wherein it is held that, withholding of increment for six months with 4 cumulative effect is not a minor punishment since it has a cumulative effect visiting upon employee throughout his service and it adversely affects his pension.
(ii) ILR 1989 KAR 3455 in the case of V Srinivas Rao Vs. State of Karnataka wherein it is held that, even in a case where minor penalty is proposed to be imposed, there should be an enquiry based on oral and documentary evidence and delinquent should be given an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses.
(iii) ILR 1996 KAR 3050 in the case of Ankappa Vs. Management of KSRTC, Bangalore wherein it is held that, as per the regulation 22(B) of the KSRTC (C & D) Regulation Rules, 1971, punishment order passed not complying with regulation is unsustainable.
(iv) ILR 2004 KAR 3852 in the case of V Mahadeva Vs. Managing Director, KSRTC with respect to issuance of cyclostyled order held that application of mind is to be shown with reference to the facts that filling up the printed forms would not inspire confidence of application of mind.
and tried to defend the order of the Labour Court and even by filing a Memo, has sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5
6. By the finding of the Tribunal, it is held that enquiry held in respect of one of the cases is fair and proper. However, in so far as other six cases are concerned, according to the workman, no enquiry has been held and in this regard, it has been observed by the Labour Court that even while passing minor punishment orders without holding any enquiry, the authority concerned has to assign good and sufficient reasons for dispensation of regular departmental enquiry, which has not been done, as such, the punishment orders passed are not in accordance with law.
7. It is the case of petitioner-Management that the workman has remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of more than sixty days and also there are two cases of non- issuance and non-collection of fare to eight and sixteen passengers respectively. Though the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the orders of punishment imposed, but the question of closure of enquiry would not arise having regard to 6 the fact that there is unauthorised absence and also misconduct of non issuance of tickets and non-collection of fare resulting in monetary loss, which is a severe offence, in the absence of any such material placed by the workman to stand by his contention. Even if enquiry is not held, since the respondent- workman has retired from service, before settlement of his retirement benefits, it may be necessary to recover some amount by way of imposing minor punishment in proof of charges leveled against him. When the Labour Court was not satisfied with the punishment imposed opining that a major punishment has been imposed, it ought to have remanded the matter to the Management.
8. In the circumstances, while modifying the order of the Tribunal, in so far as the charges leveled against the respondent is concerned, the Management is hereby directed to give an opportunity to the respondent by issuing him notice afresh and if he pleads guilty, his case be considered 7 reasonably to impose punishment or to pardon him. If he contests the matter, enquiry be held and appropriate order be passed imposing suitable punishment in accordance with law, if the charges leveled against him are proved. The respondent shall be issued with notice within one month from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, in another four months, enquiry be concluded and his monetary benefits shall be settled subject to result of enquiry.
Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp