Karnataka High Court
Sri K Parameshwara Since Dead By His Lrs vs The Divisional Controller on 6 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1859
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NOs.20891-20892/2009(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
Sri K. Parameshwara,
Since dead by his LRs.
1. Smt. Anusuya,
W/o. Late K. Parameshwara,
Aged about 42 years,
2. P. Harisha,
S/o. Late K. Parameshwara,
Aged about 24 years,
Both are residing at
No.244, 2nd Floor,
4th Cross, Kanadasa Layoaut,
Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore-560 084
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri K. Srinivasa, Adv. (absent))
AND:
The Divisional Controller,
K.S.R.T.C,
2
Bangalore Central Division,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560 027
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri R.I. D'sa, Adv.)
***
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash
the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.
No.6/2006, dtd.06.05.2009 placed at Annexure-C to the
writ petition, etc..
These petitions coming on for Final Hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed by the legal representatives of the deceased K. Parameshwara, who was a permanent employee of the respondent Corporation, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.6/2006 dtd.06.05.2009, at Annexure-C and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent 3 Corporation to allow the amended claim filed by the petitioners and to grant reliefs as prayed for therein.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased K. Parameshwara was working as a Driver under the respondent Corporation and since from the date of his appointment, he was in continuous service with great sincerity, honesty and dedication. He could not report to his duties with effect from 01.02.2003 to 02.03.2003 due to ill health. Though the respondent had received leave letters to this effect, suppressing the same, the Depot Manager had submitted a report to the respondent-Corporation alleging that the deceased workman had remained absent from the duties for the above said period and enquiry proceedings were initiated. On 12.09.2003, the deceased was summoned before the Enquiry Officer 4 and on a single day the enquiry was completed without recording statement of the concerned Depot Manager. The Enquiry Officer obtained signature of the petitioner on the enquiry proceedings and it was recorded that the petitioner has admitted the charge. Later the deceased workman was dismissed from the service vide order dated 18.12.2003.
3. Aggrieved by the same the workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D. No.6/2006. During pendency of the proceedings the workman died. The Labour Court after going through the documents available on record has dismissed the claim of the deceased-workman. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
5
4. It is contention of the petitioners that the Labour Court utterly failed to discuss facts of case of the workman. The deceased was only source for living of the petitioners. The alleged charge against the deceased is only for a short period of 30 days and in the absence of any document regarding default cases, placed by the respondent, the Labour Court ought to have set-aside the orders of dismissal, at least by exercising its power, under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, wherein ample power is vested in the Labour Court to grant appropriate reliefs. However the Labour Court has failed to do so.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.
6
6. The Labour Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
(1) Does the IInd party prove that the enquiry held against the Ist party was fair and proper?
(2) Does it further prove that the Ist party was a habitual unauthorised absentee and his order of dismissal was just and proper for the proved misconduct?
(3) Does the Ist Party prove that the order of dismissal passed by the IInd Party is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct?
(4) Is he entitled for an order of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service, if so to what order?7
7. The Labour Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative and dismissed the claim. Labour Court has held that the domestic enquiry held against the workman is fair and proper. In domestic enquiry, the workman had appeared before the Enquiry Officer and the preliminary enquiry was conducted as per Ex.M3 and he has given answer to question No.6 as under:
"6. F D¥ÁzÀ£U É ¼ À À §UÉÎ ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÀÄ ºÉüÀÄ«j?
GvÀgÛ :À ¢: 1-2-03 jAzÀÀ 2-3-03 gÀªgÀ UÉ É £Á£ÀÄ PÀvð À ªÀåPÉÌ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d«gÀÄvÀz Û É ºÁUÀÆ ¢: 22-3-03 gÀAzÀÄ £À£UÀ É eÁj ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ D¥ÁzÀ£Á ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è£À D¥ÁzÀ£UÉ ¼ À £ À ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀéEZÉѬÄAzÀ M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. E°èUÉ «ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ."
8. From the above, it is clear the workman himself has given voluntary statement by admitting the 8 misconduct of absenteeism. He has not produced any documents before Enquiry Officer to substantiate his contention that he was suffering from particular ailment and he had applied for leave on medical ground and got it sanctioned. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report as per Ex.M8 by holding the charge of absenteeism as proved against the workman. Further, the show cause notice issued to the workman on 27.09.1993 shows that the workman involved in similar six cases of absenteeism. In support of the same the respondent produced history sheet which shows that the workman had remained absent unauthorisedly and he had not improved his work and conduct. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in recording finding of guilt of the workman regarding absenteeism or there is any irregularity in imposing major penalty of dismissal 9 against him. Further it is observed that the workman never contended and proved that he was victimized by the respondent for any reason, mainly on account of labour union activities. The Labour Court rightly recorded the findings that there is no unfair labour practice or victimization of the workman. Therefore, I hold that the findings recorded by the Labour Court for dismissing the claim of the petitioners is just and proper and does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, writ petitions are liable to dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*