Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Sri.Mohammadahanif S/O Adamsha ... on 29 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001
WP No. 60837 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO.60837 OF 2011 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
HUBLI - 580 020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHAMMADAHANIF S/O. ADAMSHA BYAHATTI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
RESIDENT OF KHASAI MOHALLA,
OLD HUBLI, HUBLI - 580 024.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH &
YASHAVANT
SRI. SADANAND M.K., ADVOCATES)
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGHCOURT OF
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH DHARWAD THE CONNECTED RECORDS AND TO ISSUE AN ORDER,
DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2010 MADE IN KID
NO.83/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR
COURT, HUBLI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001
WP No. 60837 of 2011
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the employer/Corporation calling in question the award dated 27.09.2010 passed in K.I.D.No.83/2007 by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Hubli1.
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent/workman was employed as a fitter coolie with the petitioner/Corporation from 01.05.1980 to 17.07.2007. In the year 2007, he was suffering from certain medical ailments and had taken treatment in that regard. Articles of charge was issued against the workman, alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from 19.09.2004 to 30.06.2005 i.e., for a period of 285 days. The workman submitted his explanation to the charge sheet. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report that the charges have been proved. Based on the said report, vide order dated 17.07.2007, the workman was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, the workman raised a 1 Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001 WP No. 60837 of 2011 HC-KAR dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 19872.
3. The petitioner/Corporation entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the said proceedings. Vide award dated 27.09.2010, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of the petitioner and passed the following:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed.
The dismissal order passed by the respondent dated 17.7.2007 is modified to that of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect.
The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner within one month from the date of commencement of the award with continuity of service, without back wages.
Send a copy of this award to the Government for its publication as contemplated under Section 17-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act' -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001 WP No. 60837 of 2011 HC-KAR
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the workman has not adequately demonstrated that he was suffering from any medical condition, and that the earlier instances of unauthorised absence by the workman were appropriately dealt with by imposing a minor punishment and fine. It is further contended that the workman has made contradictory statements with regard to his absenteeism, and that the award of the Labour Court tantamounts to treating the workman with leniency. It is also contended that pursuant to the interim order dated 16.06.2011 passed by this Court, the petitioner/Corporation has paid the wages as required under Section 17(b) of the I.D. Act. It is also submitted that the workman reported for duty on 07.05.2012, and thereafter has attained the age of superannuation. Hence, the learned counsel seeks for allowing of the petition and granting of the reliefs sought for.
6. The Tribunal while appreciating the factual matrix of the matter and while considering the question as to whether the management was justified in dismissing the petitioner, has recorded the following findings:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001 WP No. 60837 of 2011 HC-KAR
"7. Issue Nos.2 & 3:- As per the averments made in the petition and the counter statement, the petitioner was working as Fitter Coolie in the Water Supply Department and he served for about 17 years. He remained absent from duty w.e.f. 19.9.2004 to 30.6.2005. In the reply to the charge sheet, he admitted his unauthorized absence. He has not produced any material before the Enquiry Officer that he applied and obtained prior sanction of leave before availing the same. It is the case of the petitioner that he remained absent as he was suffering from Hepatitis-C and he count not attend the duty. He has produced medical certificate at the time of joining the duty on 1.7.2005. There is no dispute. After the dismissal from service, he gave representation to the respondent stating that his wife filed maintenance case; there were family problems; in the presence of the elders, he settled the matter by giving monthly maintenance to his wife and now he is free with all problems and requested to take him on duty. Before this Court he has produced two medical certificates issued by Senior Medical Officer, KIMS Hospital, Hubli marked as Ex.W.1 and W.2. In Ex.W1 it is stated that he was suffering from Hepatitis-C w.e.f. 19.9.2004 and he is required to take rest till his recovery. Ex.W.2 is the fitness certificate. In this certificate it is stated that he is fit to report duty w.e.f. 30.6.2005. Apart from disease, there were family problems in his family and he has settled the family problems in the presence of the elders. The petitioner remained unauthorized absent w.e.f. 19.9.2004 to 30.6.2005 for 285 days on medical ground. Before the Enquiry Officer, he has stated that he -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001 WP No. 60837 of 2011 HC-KAR could not attend the duty as he was suffering from Hepatitis-C. His evidence remains unchallenged. In view of finding given on issue No.1 in the affirmative, this Court can reappraise the evidence given before the Enquiry Officer. Considering the evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer and also before this Court, I come to the conclusion that the respondent has proved the misconduct of the petitioner in this case."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Further, the Tribunal while noticing the relevant contentions urged by both the parties as also taking in to account the earlier instances of the petitioner being unauthorisedly absent, has held as follows:
"10. Even though the respondent sanctioned leave to the petitioner, he inflicted fine of Rs.250/-. It cannot be taken that the petitioner involved in absenteeism case prior to this incident and he was imposed minor penalty. There is no default history sheet against the petitioner. Considering the unauthorized absence of the petitioner on medical ground and also in view of the family problems and pendency of criminal case against him filed by his wife for maintenance, I come to the conclusion that the dismissal order passed by the respondent dismissing the petitioner from service is too harsh and it requires modification. The petitioner before this Court has stated that after the dismissal from service, he has not been -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001 WP No. 60837 of 2011 HC-KAR employed anywhere and he has to maintain himself and his children. In case of proved misconduct, the workman is not entitled to back wages. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that if the dismissal order is modified to that of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect will meet the ends of justice."
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is clear from the aforementioned that the workman has placed material on record to demonstrate that he was suffering from Hepatisis-C and was undergoing medical treatment in that regard. It is further forthcoming that the wife of the workman had filed a maintenance case and there were family problems in that regard. The Tribunal, after appreciating the relevant factual matrix, rightly interfered with the order of dismissal passed against the workman. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service without back wages, and also modified the order of punishment to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper.
9. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the award of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11001 WP No. 60837 of 2011 HC-KAR with by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction contained under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. Hence, the petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8