Karnataka High Court
N Balagangadhar vs The Chief Traffic Manager on 12 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20144
WP No. 43379 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.43379 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
N. BALAGANGADHAR
S/O. N. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED 53 YEARS,
R/O. GHATTAMADAMANGALA VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER,
K.S.R.T.C.,
CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by SHYAMALA (BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
KARNATAKA
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2017 AS CONTAINED UNDER
ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE AWARD DATED 21.12.2017 AS
CONTAINED UNDER ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
IN I.D.NO.8/2016 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20144
WP No. 43379 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner is a workman assailing the order dated 25/09/2017 (Annexure - A) and award dated 21/12/2017 (Annexure - B) on the file of the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in ID.No.8/2016.
2. The petitioner herein is termed as the workman and the respondent as the Corporation.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation since 1997 and he was dismissed from service due to the unauthorized absence from the duty from 22/05/2014 to 07/08/2015 till the date of dismissal. The articles of charges was issued. The enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was submitted holding that articles of charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, dismissed the workman from the service.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018
4. The workman filed claim statement under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "ID Act" for short) seeking for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 07/08/2015 and to reinstate the workman into service to his original post with continuity of service with all other consequential benefits and back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
5. The Corporation appeared and filed its counter claim disputing the claim petition and contended that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with law and followed the principles of natural justice and after affording reasonable opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order of dismissal.
6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following preliminary issue:
"PRELIMINARY ISSUE Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the second party corporation against the first party is fair and proper?"-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018
7. The Tribunal answered issue No.1 (preliminary issue) holding that the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper and as such, the claim petition was heard on merits.
8. Thereafter, after hearing both the parties, answered the issue in favour of the Corporation recording that there was no victimization and unfair labour practice followed by the Corporation. On victimization and discrimination, the workman got himself examined as WW.1 and got marked Exs.W-27 to W-29 and during the cross-examination, Exs.M-35 to M-37 were marked. On behalf of the management, one A.N.Basavaraju, Establishment Supervisor was examined as MW.2 and got marked Ex.M-38 - history sheet. The Corporation was examined as MW.1 and got marked 34 documents as per Exs.M-1 to M-34
9. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence, exercising the power under Section 11 of the ID -5- NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018 Act, held that the workman has failed to prove that the order of dismissal dated 07.08.2015 is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside and the Corporation has justified the order of dismissal on the alleged misconduct of the workman and as such, the workman was not entitled for any relief. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is preferred by the workman.
10. Heard Sri L.Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner - workman and Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation.
11. Learned counsel for the workman would contend that the Disciplinary Authority has not taken into consideration that the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, wherein it was categorically stated that the workman is having disability of 50% and hence, he is unable to work in the post of driver. Learned counsel for the workman would also submit that though an application was sought for transfer from Chikkaballapur to Kolar Depot on the ground that he be accommodated in light -6- NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018 work department due to the disability. Inspite of that Kolar Depot, where he was transferred, had directed him to produce licence and based on which he would be entitled to work in the Kolar Depo. Learned counsel would further contend that insisting the workman to produce the renewed licence is without considering the records that the workman was suffering from disability to the extent of 50%. Learned counsel would also contend that the order of dismissal is without considering the medical records produce by the workman for the said period and the reason for his absence was due to bona fide reasons and was not willful. Stating this ground, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman sought to allow the petition.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent - Corporation would contend that that at the request of the workman, on 04/03/2014 he was transferred to Kolar Division and though he was relieved on 21/05/2014 from Chikkaballapur Division, he failed to report for duty and since then, he remained absent and as such call notice -7- NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018 was issued to him on 02/09/2014, but the workman neither replied nor reported to duty till the date of dismissal. The Enquiry Officer, having conducted the enquiry, has come to the conclusion that the absence of the workman is willful and the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper after affording reasonable opportunity. Learned counsel would also contend that in such circumstances, a lenient view cannot be taken as he was continuously absent for nearly 1,000 days, due to which, the workman was awarded grave punishment of dismissal for his misconduct by the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence on record, confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority and held that there is no victimization or unfair labour practice having been followed by the Corporation. Stating this ground, learned counsel for the Corporation sought for dismissal of the petition.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner - workman has made out a case to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case?
14. The fact that the petitioner was working as a driver in the respondent - Corporation is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Medical Board had issued a certificate to the petitioner to the effect that he had suffered from 50% disability. The petitioner was initially working in the Chikkaballapur Depot. Later on, the workman having underwent de-addiction treatment and subsequently, he sought for transfer in the year 2013 from Chikkaballapur Division to Kolar Division "After 8 years of service in the year 30/7/2005 the Dipo. Manager told me do double duty. Since I refused to go for double duty the divisional controller sent me for de-hydration test in Jayanagar Bangalore. After admission in Jayanagar K.S.R.T.C. hospital I was given treatment. But due to wrong treatment and giving wrong medicine and injection my entire body reacted and I was attacked -9- NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018 by paralytic stroke lost my body strength unable to walk properly and speak properly. At present I lost my speech and leg. For this reason I was given attender job at Chikpalapur Dipo. Thereafter I was transferred to Kolar Division.
When I came to report duty at Kolar Division On 22-05-2014 but D.C. did Not given Job to me instead of dragging me day by day finally D.C. sent me to A.O. of Kolar division but still now I have not provided any job. I have no any financial facilities to meet my day to day expenditure.
On 15/11/2014 the administrative officer at Kolar told me to give a letter mentioning my defiled difficulties requesting for light job. Regarding the above request I am submitting this letter to you.
In this regard I request your good self to take necessary and suitable action and provide me necessary job to me."
15. A representation seeking for light work is made by the petitioner - workman in the year 2013 to contend that he is unable to walk properly and he is having disability and as such, he may be provided light work. Subsequent to filing of his representation, he was
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018 transferred to Kolar Division, wherein it is at that point of time i.e., from 22/05/2014 to 07/08/2015, he has consistently remain absent. The Tribunal, taking into consideration that there was no material produced, more particularly on the medical ground as contended by the workman to show his ill-health and his absence was not willful. The workman has failed to establish that his absence from 22/05/2014 to 07/08/2014 is not willful and the Corporation has rightly established that the workman was unauthorisedly absent for the said period and there was misconduct on the part of the workman. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no perversity in the order of the Disciplinary Authority and there is no victimization and unfair labour practice as contended by the workman. As such, the order of the Disciplinary Authority just and proper. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the point framed for consideration needs to be answered against the workman.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20144 WP No. 43379 of 2018
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexures - A and B dated 25/09/2017 and 21/12/2017 respectively stand confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*