Karnataka High Court
Sri C V Pillappa vs The Director (S V & E) on 1 June, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.10665/2012 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
SRI C V PILLAPPA
S/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
NO.5, SULIKUNTE COLONY
DOMMASANDRA POST
BANGALORE EAST
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE DIRECTOR (S V & E)
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
BMTC
CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560027
2. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER
BMTC
CENTRAL OFFICE
K H ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560027
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD.21.8.10 PASSED BY TH 3RD ADDL.LABOUR COURT
AT BANGALORE, IN ID NO.91/09 VIDE ANNEX-C AND HOLD
-2-
THAT THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 10(4-A) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947
(KARNATAKA AMENDMENT ACT, 1987) IS WELL WITHIN TIME
AND REMAND THE DISPUTE TO THE LABOUR COURT FOR
FURTHER ENQUIRY AND TO PASS AN ORDER / AWARD IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor and came to be dismissed from service on charges of unauthorised absence being levelled against him by order dated 2.8.2006 after conducting Domestic Enquiry. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent which also ended in rejection and thereafter Industrial Dispute was raised before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in ID No.91/2009. However it was rejected on the ground of delay namely on the ground that dispute was not raised within the time prescribed under section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, i.e. within six months from the date of order of dismissal. To arrive at such a conclusion, Labour Court has found that statutory appeal filed by -3- the workman itself was time barred and he had not produced any material to show that the said appeal was filed within the stipulated period. This order is impugned in the present Writ Petition.
2. Today, learned counsel for petitioner - workman has filed an affidavit contending that in case order of Labour Court is set aside by this Court with a direction to Labour Court to decide the matter on merits and if he succeeds before the Labour Court in the dispute on merits, he would not claim the benefit of continuity of service and other consequential benefits including back wages for the period from 2.8.2006 to 15.10.2009. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that on similar grounds this Curt had allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter back to Labour Court in W.P. No.22231/2011 vide order dated 7.7.2011 and prays for similar order being passed in this Writ Petition also.
-4-
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents - Corporation has acknowledged the receipt of the said affidavit.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, it is noticed that workman came to be dismissed from service on 2.8.2006 for unauthorised absence after charges levelled against him was held duly proved in the Domestic Enquiry. An appeal is provided under Regulation 31 of the KSRTC Servants (C & D) Regulation, 1971. Such appeal filed by workman came to be dismissed by appellate authority on 26.5.2009, which is at Annexure-B. A perusal of the said order would go to show that appellate authority has examined the matter on merits and rejected the appeal. Nowhere the issue regarding delay has been raised, considered or adjudicated, which would in effect go to show that even if such delay was there as contended by the learned counsel appearing for respondent - Corporation, the same has not been taken note of or it is deemed to have been condoned. This court, in Writ Petition No.22231/2011(L-KSRTC) disposed of on -5- 7.7.2011-Annexure-D has taken note of the decision rendered by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Writ Petition No.3143/2005 disposed of on 20.6.2005 in the case of B.M. Eshwaraiah vs. Chief Civil Engineer & another, holding that date of disposal of the statutory appeal ought to be reckoned as the date for the purpose of limitation when section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is invoked to interfere with the impugned award. Taking into consideration affidavit filed by the petitioner workman and the proposition of law laid down in Eshwaraiah's case, followed in M. Muniraju's case which is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for Corporation, I am of the considered view that the award impugned herein deserves to be set aside.
5. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. The matter is hereby remitted to the Labour Court for consideration afresh for passing orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that if the petitioner were to succeed in the Labour Court, he would be dis-entitle to continuity of service and -6- consequential benefits including back wages for the period 2.8.2006 to 15.10.2009. Since both parties are represented before this court, they are hereby directed to appear before the labour court on 27.6.2012 without awaiting for any further notice from Labour Court. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL