Shri Rama Poojary vs The Regional Railway Manager on 2 March, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Rama Poojary vs The Regional Railway Manager on 2 March, 2018

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2018

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

         WRIT PETITION NO.41957/2014 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. RAMA POOJARY
S/O LATE MARAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT KULLANJA HOUSE,
MADYANTHAR POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA
KARNATAKA - 574 224                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADV.)

AND:

THE REGIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
SHIRWAD, KARWAR - 581 306              ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.OMKAR KAMBI, ADV. FOR
 M/S NAIK & NAIK LAW FIRM)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.3.6.2014 IN CR.NO.45/2002 PASSED BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR
COURT COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEX-A.
                                  2




     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 03rd June 2014 passed in CR No.45 of 2002 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore. The petitioner herein is the first party before the Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that by holding Domestic Enquiry, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The dismissal order was the subject matter before the Labour Court. The Labour Court framed point that the domestic enquiry held against the first party by the second party is fair and proper answered the point against the petitioner. Further, it has rejected the claim made before the Labour Court. The said rejection is in challenge before this Court. It is submitted that the subject matter before the Labour Court is with regard to the unauthorised absence for 1078 days. The petitioner-first party has stated that he has received a message about the illness of his father and 3 immediately rushed to his native place to attend to his father by applying two days leave. Thereafter, he suffered mad dog bite and hence he was forced to stay back for the said period. Hence, the absence of the petitioner from service is not intentional and the same needs to be condoned. Further the learned counsel submits that the domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper. However, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the enquiry is sound and proper.

3. The said submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is examined. The charge sheet issued was with regard to unauthorised absence of the first party and the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was confirmed by the Labour Court. The two forums have held against the petitioner. Further, there is no sufficient reasons explained to this Court as to what are the lapses or illegality found in the domestic enquiry or in the order of the Labour Court. As long as that has not been highlighted, it is not proper for the Court to interfere. It is further that that when a person is given appointment, a duty is cast upon that person who has been trusted that he will 4 discharge his work for the benefit of the Institution. When that trust is betrayed, it is to be held that such person is an unworthy person, he cannot be taken on duty. Under these circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of the Labour Court and there is no ground made out to interfere in the matter. Petition is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE lnn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court