Karnataka High Court
The Management Of vs Kamal Kumar Kaushik on 25 June, 2012
Author: K.L. Manjunath
Bench: K.L. Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.17963/2011 ( L-TER)
AND
WRIT APPEAL No.1707/2012 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
W.A.No.17963/2011:
The Management of
M/s Jindal Charitable Hospital,
Shopping Complex, 12th Main
Road, II Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore.
R/by Medical Superintendent
C.R.Jayaprakash .. APPELLANT
(By Advocate Sri.Ashok P Bhoopalam for
Sri.B.C.Prabhakar)
AND:
Kamal Kumar Kaushik s/o
B.G.Kaushik (Employee of
Jindal Aluminium Ltd.)
R/at Siddeshwara Nilaya,
No.56, Ravi Kirloskar Layout,
2
II Main, Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore. .. RESPONDENT
(By Advocate Sri.Swamy)
BETWEEN:
W.A.No.1707/2012:
Kamal Kumar Kaushik s/o
B.G.Kaushik, R/at Siddeshwara Nilaya,
No.56, Ravi Kirloskar Layout,
II Main, Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore. .. APPELLANT
(By Advocate Sri.Swamy)
AND:
M/s Jindal Charitable Hospital
Corporation, Shopping Complex,
12th Main, II Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore. .. RESPONDENT
(By Advocate Sri.Ashok P Bhoopalam for
Sri.B.C.Prabhakar)
- - - - -
WA No.17963/11 is filed under Sec.4 of The
Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order
passed in WP No.6662/11 dated 21.10.2011.
WA No.1707/12 is filed under Sec.4 of The
Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order
dated 21.10.2011 passed in WP No.6662/11 C/w
36856/11 (L-TER) in so far as dismissing WP
No.36856/11 is concerned.
3
These two Appeals are coming on for
preliminary hearing this day, MANJUNATH J.
delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Being aggrieved by the order passed in WP No.6662/2011 C/w WP No.36856/11 dated 21.10.2011, these two appeals are preferred. One appeal is by the management and another by the workman.
2. Workman absented himself for 43 days from 12.1.2008 without obtaining prior permission. The management by issuing three notices called upon the workman to join for duty. He failed to do so. Therefore, without holding an enquiry ordered for re-instatement with 70% back-wages. Challenging the same, both the workman as well as the management filed two writ petitions, learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the management modifying the back-wages awarded by the labour court to 30% and dismissed 4 the writ petition filed by the workman. Challenging these two orders, present appeals are filed.
3. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
4. It is not in dispute that Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge have concurrently held that workman has not shown sufficient cause for his unauthorized absence. He was unauthorizedly absent for 43 days. He was working as Accountant in Charitable Hospital. Though the Labour Court has awarded 70% of back-wages, did not consider the continuity of service except order for re- instatement. There is nothing on record to show that workman was not gainfully employed during this period and having heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that if the services rendered by him earlier to dismissal as continuity of service for the purpose of other 5 benefits, ends of justice would be met and awarding of back-wages to 30% by the learned single Judge is further reduced to 10%.
5. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of modifying the order of the learned single Judge and the Labour Court holding that termination of workman is bad in law and he is entitled for re-instatement with back-wages of 10% and continuity of service in full. Workman shall be re-instated into the original position and he is entitled for other consequential benefits.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
R/280612