Karnataka High Court
B Mahadevappa vs The Chairman M/S Gangavathi Sugars ... on 5 June, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.49296/2004 (L TER)
BETWEEN:
1. B Mahadevappa
S/O. Yallappa
Aged About 50 Years,
Occ: Fitter/Mazdoor,
Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal Dist.
2. Raja Vijaya Naik
S/O. Raja Rangappa Naik
Aged About 55 Years
Occ: Asst Supervisor B-Gr
Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268
Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal Dist.
3. Mahanthappa
S/O. Hanmanthappa,
Aged About 56 Years,
Occ: I Class Boiler Attendant/Fireman,
Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal Dist.
4. S Giriyappa
S/O. Sheshappa,
Aged About 55 Years,
Occ: Khalasi/Mazdoor,
Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
2
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal Dist.
5. Devappa Marali
S/O. Basappa,
Aged About 51 Years,
Occ: Lab Boy/Mazdoor,
Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal Dist.
6. Ayyanagouda
S/O. Kantegouda,
Aged About 48 Years,
Occ: Centrifugal Mate/Operator,
Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk,
Koppal Dist.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri B SHARANABASAVA, ADV., )
AND
1. The Chairman
M/S Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk,
Koppal Dist.
2. The Managing Director,
M/S. Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk,
Koppal Dist.
3. The Executive Director,
M/S. Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
3
Pragathinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal Dist.
4. The General Manager,
M/S. Gangavathi Sugars Ltd.,
Pragatinagar - 583 268,
Gangavathi Taluk,
Koppal Dist.
5. The Official Liquidator,
Attached To The High Court
of Karnataka, IV Floor,
Kendriya Sadan, F-Wing,
Koramangala, Bangalore.
. ... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI R SHARATCHANDRA, ADV. FOR R1, 2, 4 &
SRI DEEPAK, ADV. FOR R.5, R3 IS SERVED &
UNREPRESENTED.)
This W.P. filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dt.
26.4.2000 passed by R2 vide Annex.F, F1 to F5. Quash the
award dt. 6.5.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Gulbarga, in reference no.742/2000, so far as
it relates to demoting the petitioners no.1 and 2, and
rejecting the claim of the petitioners 3 to 6 vide Annex. G.
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the orders dated 26.04.2000 which are impugned at Annexures-F to F5. The petitioners are also assailing 4 the award dated 06.05.2004 passed in Ref. No.742/2000 which is impugned at Annexure-G to the petition. The further consequential relief has also been sought in the instant petition.
2. The petitioners were visited with a charge sheet dated 04.04.1997 alleging that they had committed misconduct on 31.03.1997 by entering into the Chambers of the General Manager and staying in the chambers seeking recognition of the Union. The allegation was also made with regard to the indecent behaviour and abuses being hurled. Ultimately the petitioners No.1 and 2 were dismissed from the services of the company, while the other petitioners were imposed the punishment of demotion to the lower grade. In that circumstance, the petitioners had raised a dispute and by the reference order dated 14.11.2000 the Government had referred the dispute to the Court of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga in Ref. 5 No.742/2000. The Labour Court by the impugned award dated 06.05.2004 has set aside the dismissal order passed against the petitioners No.1 and 2 and has modified punishment to that of demotion with reduced salary. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the award passed by the Labour Court would contend that the Labour Court was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the charges were proved and the petitioners No.1 and 2 are to be visited with the modified punishment. It is further contended that the Labour Court was not justified in not interfering with the punishment imposed on petitioners No.3 to 6. It is contended that when the domestic enquiry held against the petitioners was held as not fair and proper, the respondent management was required to establish the charges afresh before the Labour Court. In that regard, 6 the evidence tendered is insufficient and therefore, the Labour Court could not have arrived at the conclusion that the charges alleged have been proved. In that context, the punishment ought not to have been looked into from the view point of Section 11A of the ID Act, but should have set aside the punishment in its entirety by holding that the charges had not been proved before the Labour Court. It is further contended that when the Labour Court has affirmed the punishment against the petitioners No.3 to 6, it would have to be assumed that the reference had been made against them as well. It is therefore contended that the award passed by the Labour Court calls for interference.
4. In the light of the contentions put forth, I have perused the writ papers including the award passed by the Labour Court.
7
5. The point of reference has been extracted in para 2 of the award. A perusal of the same would indicate that the reference made by the Government is in respect of the petitioners No.1 and 2 since the reference points out that what was required to be considered by the Labour Court was as to whether the management was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal on petitioners No.1 and 2, when the petitioners No.3 to 6 were inflicted with the punishment of demotion. Therefore, as rightly noticed in the body of the award where the Labour Court has discussed this aspect, the reference in fact would remain limited to the case of petitioners No.1 and 2 to find out as to whether the dismissal was justified. When common enquiry was held for the same charge, different punishment had been imposed in respect of the petitioners No.3 to 6. If that be the position, in my opinion, merely the Labour Court affirming the punishment in respect of petitioners No.3 to 6 does not make any difference. But what 8 requires to be considered is as to whether insofar as the reference, the Labour Court had properly appreciated the issue involved. In that regard, it is to be noticed that pursuant to the reference, the Labour Court had framed 3 issues for its consideration among which the first issue was with regard to the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry which had been held in the instant case. No doubt in the said portion the names of the petitioners are included. The Labour Court by its order dated 15.07.2002 was of the view that the domestic enquiry held was not fair and proper and in that circumstance, opportunity was provided to the respondent management to tender fresh evidence before the Labour Court.
6. The management had thereafter examined MW.1 to MW.4 and marked documents at Exhs.M1 to M16. It is based on the appreciation of the said evidence, the Labour Court has arrived at the 9 conclusion that the charge alleged against the petitioners has been proved. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the General Manager who had issued the charge sheet and to whose chamber the petitioners were alleged to have entered and created the situation had not been examined and the Labour Court could not have relied on the evidence as tendered by the management. I am of the opinion that keeping in view the distant point of time at which the evidence had been recorded before the Labour Court after setting aside the findings of domestic inquiry, the person who was occupying the said position had been examined as MW.1. In addition to the oral statement made by the said witness, the documents at Ex.M1 to M16 which related to the enquiry had been marked afresh before the Court and in that context when the evidence of the management was available and this aspect was taken note of by the Labour Court with regard to the incident which had occurred in the 10 Chamber on 31.03.1997, in that context, the Labour Court had arrived at the conclusion that the evidence tendered by WW.1 to WW.3 would also lend credence to the allegation as made by the petitioners, more particularly keeping in view the reply at Ex.W.2.
7. Therefore, when there was wilful insubordination and disobedience, the Labour Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the charges alleged had been proved. Once the charge had been established, in any event, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioners No.3 to 6 not being one of dismissal or removal was not available to be looked into to exercise the discretion available under Section 11A of the ID Act. Therefore, the Labour Court keeping the said legal position in view has thereafter looked into the punishment inflicted upon the petitioners No.1 and 2 and in that context, on taking note that the dismissal of the petitioners No.1 and 2 is disproportionate to the 11 charge alleged, more particularly in a circumstance where four other persons who were involved in the same incident had been imposed a lesser punishment has thereafter modified the punishment in respect of petitioners No.1 and 2 to bring it on par with the punishment imposed on the petitioners No.3 to 6.
8. Therefore when all these aspects of the matter have been considered by the Labour Court and a finding has been rendered based on the evidence available on record, this Court while examining such award in the limited scope available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not find any perversity in the findings rendered by the Labour Court. Hence the award does not call for interference.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the respondent/company has already been ordered to be wound up in 12 Co.P.No.66/1997 and the liquidation proceedings is under way. Hence, it is contended that the 5th respondent be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for computation of the benefits that they are entitled to and disburse the same.
10. In that regard, it is needless to mention that keeping in view that petitioners No.1 and 2 have been reinstated by the award and the same has been affirmed, the monetary benefits payable to them and also the other benefits shall be looked into by the 5th respondent as per the provisions contained in the Companies Act and as and when the amount is available, the disbursement shall be made to the petitioners.
This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/