Karnataka High Court
Vijaya Bhaskar D A vs Management Of M/S Bosch Ltd., on 16 September, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
:N THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1637" DAY OF' sEPrEMBER.2.Qm
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT:cE RA1M..MO_fiAN'
»;+:~_2.:2a.é3': * =
Wm Pmrrxom N0s.22380~ /.20'B10B{LfARf53§ ..
W.P.NO.22380/2010
BETWEEN :
Vijaya Bhaskar D.A -. V'
E.N0.19486/8116 B
Aged about 45'3rea'rs _ «
M/s Bosch. Ltd, E3anga1.ore.VP1a11L3@ .
Adugodi, E'anga130.re1*-- . if .
C / 0 AITUC Kafnz¥:i&ka_ Si "te Committee
#6, snfur P'ark Road B
Seshadripura B' 'V
Bangalore '--' 56'OvVO2;O., B"
" ' r B ...PETITIONER
V. '_ [By»*arsifr1i*:an__& Assts. Advs.]
A"1a4afi;ageame::£ of M /s Bosch Ltd
Bangaloife Plant, Adugodi
Batjlgaelovre »-- 560 030.
gRep.-by Manager
' -»S1'i.A.R.RaVi
E Age: Major
5 Bangalore,
Enquiry Officer
C/0 M/s Bosch Ltd.,
Bangalore Plant Adugodg
,;\-L
'K;
5
Ex}
4
Bangalore - 560 030. ._
RESPONDENTS
*$>I<*=!= This Writ Petition is filed under Arti_eIe~s 2.2s_anc'r _ 227 of the Constitution of ln.d»ia.._praying'to 'quash, AnneXure--H the impugned order; dated §.3';7."2,_O1.0'passed.' by the learned Presiding Officer; IIia_Additi-oI'1a.l La1_;$o1i1',_ Court, Bangalore in S.O.A.No.Q2/2010.
W.P.NO.22381/2010 H A A BETWEEN I Vijaya Bhaskar DA E.No.19486/81_16.__ g _ Aged about 45 4'
M / s Bosch Ltld, Bangalore 'l?1ar1t"' ' Adugodi, BVa;.1g:ali)Vre.l' ' 'a C / o AITEFC ..Ka.rnataka'*iState Committee #6, Sirur ParkBTRoad.% v " _ ' Seshadriptira _ V Bangalore} 560'-O2'O'.' _ " ' . . . PETITIONER ~" '~ (By. arsirnhan--~& Assts. Advs .)
1.' of M/s Bosch Ltd B~ang__alore' Plant, Adugodi Bangalore -- 560 030.
.. R_.ep."by Manager sit KGS Alva Bangalore " Enquiry Officer C/0. M/s Bosch Ltd., Bangalore Plant, Adugodi lei Bangalore ---- 560 030.
. . .RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226-and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to..._qtiash AnneXure--K the impugned order dated 3.7.2010' passed by the learned Presiding Officer, II Additional'"L.%il3o1:.:7:'. Court, Bangalore in S.0.A.No.01/2010. These Writ Petitions are coining' onfor' pré'1in1if1ary"« hearing this day, the Court made:"tghe;'_'fol'loWin'g:_ 'g 1 . coMMo1\:¢;_¢,_1§_1;t§g'l:p_ i A Since common gnestionaof of fact arise for decision of the learned counsel petivtioriereslllpetitions are clubbed are disposed of by this conarnon V ordefic'. V ~ The pletitioner an employee of respondent No. 1- BOSCI-I Limited, Bangalore and a AITUC Karnataka State Committee, Bange.:lore,'lyvhen visited with a charge sheet alleging ll..jfacts'«..of rr1is~conduct, committed outside the premise of the factory, followed by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, filed two separate applications invoking Section 13 A of the Industrial Employment (Standing lat Order} Act. 1948, [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) seeking interpretation of the standing orders--,g as to Whether the allegations constitute terms of the standing orders. The presented before the 2"" Additionaijj, Bangalore, were registeredVas_.SOi'X.l$Tos. and the Presiding Officer by svedparatge orders' of even date 28.3.2010 on interlo-a:u:I'ory'{V_ applicationgs, directed the respondent-Managementeh_ not pp :'tQ_.-i._VPf;j§:eed with the domestic The liiespoiigdentifon notice entered appearance an,:.order_"'t'oVprepone the case, filed objections to sought vacating the interim order. _ _ _ 2nAd"'Ad.di'tionai Labour Court having heard the' 'counsel for the parties on the applications. being of opinion that the Act does not vest a 'jurisdiction in the Labour Court to issue interim Vdir_eci;«ions not to proceed with the enquiry. in a petition invoking Section 13 A of the Act coupled with the fact that the petitioner is at liberty to advance a plea before in the Disciplinary Authority that the allegations do not constitute mis--conduct under the standing ordelrsiland elicit a response both from the Disciplinary"Auth--ori'ty' and the enquiry officer, and if agg»rieved'to' same in an appropriate legal ."proceeldings" Industrial Forum, thought to.di.s_solye,:theorder ofie even date 23.3.20]V_E}.._. Yet" Court observed that it wasalopenl to have the applications l 'reasonable time since no eviden:ce:.4"' the matter could be Hence, these writ petitions." p Although___'Sri. M.C.Narsirnhan, learned Senior ' .w.Courisel petitioner contends that until a finding Court as to whether the allegations against the petitioner do constitute rnis--conducts under standing orders of the respondent--Company, stalling of the enquiry proceedings is in the interest of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. I am not impressed by that submission. EM
5. As rightly pointed out by the Labour Court there is no provision under the 'Act' by which interim directions could be issued over Interl'oc'utory applications in the proceedings invoking oft i the said Act.
6. It may be petiti0nerl'V""sejeks interpretation of the Standing---(5ifdersy_in the'-lighiit of the allegations made by according to the ernployerg the standing orders. But; more it is too far fetched<.__to__ an interpretation of the standing ordervvisl"souVglitl'by invoking Section 13 A of the Act," proceedings before the domestic enquiry must the disposal of the application. petitioner is entitled to put forth his gdefenlce Vlbefore the Enquiry Officer, which he has lll..japp'a;¢ently done in his explanation, that the allegations Vdognot amount to a mis--conduct under the Standing u".(5rders, and I have no reason to believe that the contention would not be bestowed attention by the hi Enquiry Officer and a finding recorded there on. Yet again it is for the disciplinary authority to addressthe explanation offered by the petitioner and question as to whether the allegations. mis--coriduct under the StandingL§(5i<ders;--- petitioner is aggrieved by the___ordeA;_ of the"disc,ip1iil1ary' authority, it is needless to has an alternate and efficacious.reir1e_dji'"'toIc1uestion the same in an appropriate. V V.
7. The thlelllorder impugned has clear13}:VV_'sp.clt parties were to co--operate, the of at the earliest. In that of the petitioner ought to persuade the LabQur_A_'Court__ to pass orders on the merit of the domestic enquiry is said to be at the stage "of: recording evidence and if that is so, early 'A iffciisposal of the applications is in the interest of the l parties.
big In the circumstances, no exception can be taken for the reasons; findings and conclusions arrived-.:atV'by the Labour Court in the orders impugned. writ V' stand rejected. 0 The 2nd Additional Labour is to hear the parties / their counsuel_:an._d pasedorders on the applications at the e'a.r:1iesta'ny_"ei}er3t on or before 20.10.2010. 'V SS/W