Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekar Kotaragasti vs The Divisional Controller N W K R T C on 28 June, 2011
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 28" DAY OF JUNE 2011. | BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE: K. SREEDHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO.8300/2008. '& KSRTC) _ BETWEEN: | SRI CHANDRASHEKAR' KOTARAG AS + S/O SRI BASVANTHRAYA KOTAR RAGAS Tr AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS = 3 6 R/A SAKINA, BORAGI GRAMA mo TALUK SINDHAGIL BIJAPUR: tas .. PETITIONER (BY SRLP VILAS KUMAR, ADV.) AND» THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWEKRTC | BIJAPUR DIVISION BIJAPUR. Cs ., RESPONDENT
me wy SRI. VEBPESH B PATIL, ADV) ; THIS" WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO, QUASH " THE AWARD DT.30.8.2007 PASSED BY THE LABOUR » COURT, BIJAPUR IN KID NO.10/2006 VIDE ANNEX.B. BY WHICH THE LABOUR COURT HAS DENIED BENEFITS OF CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND BACK WAGES TO THE "PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF ILLEGAL TERMINATION | ope" THE 'DATE OF HIS. REINSTATEMENT, SINCE. uw | |) SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND: (CONTRARY. DD ee oe fe PROVISIONS: OF THE LD. ACT. a we TS. PETITION 'COMING. ON, FOR ¥F INA, "HEARING a "ORDER "The: petitioner v was s working as a "conductor under a a ~ the -Tespondent. He remained unauthor ivedly absent 7 oe from 712. 2003 to 8.09. 2005. | "The petitioner is "dismissed from service after departmental enquiry. 'The | ee petitioner has stated 1 that He was Suffering from T.B and :
Jatindice. - The medical 'certificate is also produced. Thus states that bevaisse of 'the element, he could not attend to the duty. The Labour Court has found that the departmental enquiry is not fair and proper. The i parties. are permitted" to lead evidence afresh.
° Accordingly," the petitioner and respondent are let in evidence.
"8, The petitioner has examined the doctor and produced the medical certificate, which shows that the 4 petitioner was under treatment for the period from 10.2.2003 to 30.8.2004. The petitioner is also charged of past history of 2 cases of unauthorized absence. 'Phe the charge of unauthorized absence and past history is proved. The reference is rejected. . The 7 petitioner -
aggrieved by the order has filed this petition . ;
3. Sri.P Vilas Kumar, counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that ihe charge of past history is not proved. ot he petitioner: aad produced medical certificate and let in evidence of doctor to show that he was suifering from T 'Band Jaundice. Therefore, for valid reasons he was not able to attend to duty. If is further submitted that leave applications given were not : entertained and orally rejected. Therefore submitted that the order of dismissal is bad in law. The counsel a relied upon the decision of this Court In °R SMU VS. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR AND OTHER" reported in 1989 LAB LC. 1818 and division bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2020/2002, D.D.3.6.2004, wherein unauthorized absence of two years was condoned and order of the order of dismissal is disproportionate. nee any alternate penalty may be imipésed.
4. The Labour-.Court 'has discussed" the oral and documentary evidence . produced by the parties. The medical: certificate shiows that the petitioner was under treatment from | 10.2 2003 to 30.8.2004, whereas the period of smauthorized absence | is from 7.3.2003 to 3.9. 2005. "The petitioner has also produced certificate to show that he had taken treatment from Government Hospital Devan Hippargi from 31.8.2004 to 31.12.2005. : in respett, of second certificate pertaining to 31.8.2004 to Ee 12.2008 the doctor is examined. Therefore. the _ theory, of physical ailment for the said period is incredible.
ue
5. The counsel for the petitioner referred to annexure-A wherein the Divisional Controller who 1s the disciplinary authority has found that the reason of i ~ he condoned the absence. In that view, argued that.the order of dismissal is too haish-to disproportionate. ~
6. On stern scrutiny of annexure-A, it discloses that the petitioner was absent froma 712.2003 and memo was issued giving 2 days time to the petitioner to come and join duty by 17 4.2004. The period of illness considered in annexure A "does not support the contention of the "petitioner with regard to his unauthorized absence for the period from 31.68.2003 to 3.9.2008, "The Labour Court has discussed the above aspects somprehensively to come to the conclusion that petitioner is guilty of unauthorized absence. Even in : 7 tespect of past history it is observed that on previous occasions, he remained absent for 198 days and 182 days on another occasion. In the present case ee unauthorized absence is 637 days. The management has cogently established the charge of habitual absenteeism and unauthorized absence. In view of tite. KOMASTU LTD VS. N. UDAYAKUMAR™. | reported in' "2008 (1) SCC 224". the order of 'Labour Court is set : aside. The order of disciplinary authority ig restored. The petitioner however entities to subsistence allowance from the date of dismissal till the date-of award.
According, the petition is dismissed.
saf-
"sb