Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs H D Somesh on 3 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.14241 OF 2009 (L-KSRTC)
c/w
WRIT PETITION NO.21305 OF 2009 (L-KSRTC )
In W.P.No.14241 OF 2009:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU
BY ITS CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER/
FINANCIAL ADVISOR
CENTRAL OFFICE
BENGALURU-27
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
H.D. SOMESH
MAJOR,
GURUKRUPA
HADVALLY, 1ST CROSS
HASSAN. ... RESPONDENT
( SRI D.R. SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU IN
ID NO.143/2003 DATED 11.11.2008 AT ANNEXURE-F.
****
In W.P.No.21305 OF 2009:
BETWEEN:
SRI H.D.SOMESH
S/O H.K. DEVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
GURU KRUPA
DOOR NO.139/1
ADUVALLY, 1ST CROSS
HASSAN. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R. SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ACCOUNTS
OFFICER AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT,
MYSURU, PERTAINING INTO ANNEXURE-A.
****
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the workman is that he joined the services of the petitioner as Accounts Supervisor. While he was working at K.R.Nagar Depot, a Junior Assistant by name, Krishnaswamy misappropriated Rs.4,33,694/-. The first party being the Accounts Supervisor, having not vested his attention while signing the cheques, was not diligent in performing his duties. He signed on all the three cheques, which were self-cheques, brought to him by Krishnaswamy. The amounts were drawn. Thereafter, as a result of the said misconduct, the Corporation issued an Article of Charge on 06.01.2002 to the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply on 17.01.2002 admitting that due to pressure of work, he could not examine the said cheques before signing it. Being not satisfied with the said reply, the Corporation held a joint enquiry and the charges leveled against the respondent were proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed the respondent from service by the order dated 4 30.07.2003. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Mysuru in IID No.143 of 2003. By the impugned order, the petition was allowed. The order of dismissal was set aside. The Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to the post last held by him, with continuity of service, with full back wages denying two increments with cumulative effect. Questioning the same, the Corporation has filed W.P.No.14241 of 2009 and sought for quashing of the award of the Labour Court.
2. The workman has filed W.P.No.21305 of 2009 seeking to reinstate him to the original post with full back wages and with all other consequential benefits, to the extent the petitioner is aggrieved.
3. Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. She contends that a serious allegation of misconduct was alleged against the petitioner. Three cheques were brought to the petitioner by one Krishnaswamy in a total sum of Rs.4,33,694/-. They were 5 self-cheques. The petitioner has signed on it. The amounts were withdrawn by the said Krishnaswamy. Therefore, the charges against him has been proved. Infact, he has submitted his reply statement in terms of Annexure-'B' produced herein wherein he has stated that having admitted the lapses committed by him, he justifies the same, that it is due to pressure of work. Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner was justified. However, the Labour Court while considering the material has given a finding that since the negligence has been proved which is not a serious misconduct, the dismissal order was modified while directing reinstatement of the petitioner with back wages, continuity of service and with-holding of two increments.
4. Sri.D.R.Sundaresh, learned counsel for the petitioner/workman sought for modification of the award passed by the Labour Court.
5. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that appropriate relief is called for. 6
6. The charges against the workman has been proved. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper. There are serious allegations of misconduct and irregularity. The petitioner was part and parcel of such an act. One Krishnaswamy who withdrew the said cheques based on the signatures of the petitioner has since been dismissed from service and the dismissal has been upheld. Therefore, rightfully so, the petitioner was held equally liable for the said offence. The admission of the petitioner that due to rush of heavy work, the mistake has occurred cannot be accepted. It is not a regular office work. It is a question of signing on not one but on three cheques. They are self- drawn cheques. Therefore, the cheques have been signed deliberately. The dismissal of the workman cannot be said to be perverse. However, keeping in mind the fact, that the amounts withdrawn were not misappropriated so far as the petitioner is concerned, but by Krishnaswamy, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met by denying back-wages with continuity of service to the workman. Rest of the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement and withholding of two increments is the 7 least punishment that could be awarded on the workman for such acts.
7. Under these circumstances, the petitions are partly allowed. The order dated 11.11.2008 in I.I.D.No.143 of 2003 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru is modified. The order of the Labour Court directing payment of back- wages and continuity of service is set aside. Rest of the order sustains. Both petitions are disposed off accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE dh