G Manjunatha vs The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd on 6 September, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

G Manjunatha vs The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd on 6 September, 2012

Bench: K. L. Manjunath

                       1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

  DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012

                   PRESENT

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. L. MANJUNATH

                     AND

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

 WRIT APPEAL NOS.2294/2008 & 4314/2009 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

G. MANJUNATHA,
AGE 60 YEARS,
S/O P GANGADHARA NAIDU,
E.C.NO.30257, FIRE SERVICE DEPARTMENT,
MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD.,
R/O LIG II, 103, 2ND STAGE,
KHB GOPALA, SHIMOGA.
                                  ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD.,
SUGAR FACTORY,
PAPER TOWN POST,
BHADRAVATHI-577 302,
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
                                ... RESPONDENT

  (BY SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR SRI.M.R.C.RAVI,
                  ADVOCATE)
                              2




     These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.19387/2005 dated
15/07/2008.

      These Writ Appeals coming on for hearing this
day, K.L.Manjunath J., delivered the following:

                     JUDGMENT

Challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.12296/2002 c/w. 19387/2005 dated 15.7.2008, these appeals are filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The undisputed facts leading to these appeals are as under:

The appellant being an employee of the respondent - The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., assaulted his superior officer. Therefore, he was suspended and an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, charge levelled against the appellant was proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the nature of charge, dismissed the appellant from the service. Challenging the same, a 3 dispute was raised before the labour Court. The Labour Court having held the enquiry as fair and proper invoking the discretionary power vested in it under section 11A of the ID Act, modified the punishment by setting aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant in to service with continuity of service without back wages and the scale of pay was also brought down to the lowest and three increments were also denied with cumulative effect. The order of the Labour Court dated 22.1.2001 was questioned by the respondent - management by filing Writ Petition No.12296/2002 (L-TER). Similarly, the appellant being not satisfied with the non granting of back wages and with-holding of three increments with cumulative effect, filed Writ Petition No.19387/2005 (L- TER).

4. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the Writ Petitions came to the conclusion that the labour court was not justified in interfering with th`e punishment imposed by the respondent considering the nature of charge. Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition 4 filed by the management and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Therefore, these two orders are challenged in these appeals.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, as it is a concurrent finding of fact and that the appellant has assaulted his superior officer Sri Radha Krishna without any provocation. In such a case, the Labour Court was not justified in ordering reinstatement with continuity of service. It is no doubt true that section 11A of the Act, can be invoked by the labour Court. While exercising the discretionary power, labour court is expected to look into the background of the case and charges levelled against the workman employee. In the circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the labour court, this court cannot interfere with the same. Be that as it may, the appellant was working from 1980 till he was dismissed from service. As he has been dismissed in the year 1997, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for proportionate gratuity and Provident Fund 5 ('PF' for short), if the same is not settled by the respondent - employer.

6. However, considering the number of years of service put in by the appellant, we are of the view that the order of dismissal shall be modified into 'compulsory retirement' and that the appellant is entitled to only for PF and Gratuity and not any other benefits.

7. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE PL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court