Bill Forge Private Limited vs Mr C M Rangaswamy on 9 July, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bill Forge Private Limited vs Mr C M Rangaswamy on 9 July, 2012

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

                         1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2012

                      PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
                        AND
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

          WRIT APPEAL N0.5775/2011(L.RES)

BETWEEN

 1   BILL FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED
     # 9C, BOMMASANDRA,
     INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560099
     REPTD BY ITS GENERAL MANAGERHR
     MR K CHANDRASHEKHAR
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
                             ... APPELLANT

(By Sri : S SANTHOSH NARAYAN, ADV.)

AND :

 1   MR C M RANGASWAMY
     MAJOR, C/O CHELLAPPA BUILDING
     NEAR SRINIVASA TALKIES,
     BHAVANI ROAD, HEBBAGODI,
     BANGALORE DIST
                             ... RESPONDENT

 (By Sri :K.B.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV. APPEARING
FOR M/S. M C NARASIMHAN ASSOCIATES, FOR
RESPONDENT )

     THIS   WRIT   APPEAL    FILED   U/S   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
                                2


NO.8051/2010(L-RES) DATED 11/07/2011.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, SURI APPA RAO J, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the correctness of the order dt.11th July 2011, whereby the Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that there are no extenuating circumstances to impose the punishment of dismissal for the act of proved mis conduct. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed this appeal.

2. The brief facts of this case are as follows:

The respondent was working as Operator in the appellant Company. By Order dt.30.11.2006 he was terminated from the service after holding enquiry. The main charge framed against the respondent was he was guilty of the charge of sleeping for one hour while 3 on duty. The respondent questioned the order passed by the appellant Company before the Industrial Tribunal u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court considering the material on record particularly Ex.M-30 letter produced by the respondent admitting that he had slept on duty for ½ hour on 29.11.2005 due to illness and it was the first mistake in his life and would not repeat in future. Having considered the explanation submitted by the respondent, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court exercising the discretion u/s 11A of the ID Act, modified the order of punishment into a reinstatement by with holding one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, the appellant filed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge confirmed the passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the charge against the respondent in sleeping while on duty is serious charge and the order passed by the Company dismissing him from service is proper and the learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court are not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Company which passed termination order after due enquiry, as the respondent was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the case of BHARAT FORGE CO. LTD. Vs. UTTAM MANOHAR NAKAT. The learned Single Judge considering the above decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and found that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case as in the said case the conduct of the workman during the domestic enquiry proceedings was considered and observed the quantum of punishment of dismissal cannot be stated to be disproportionate to the act of misconduct. 5

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the workman has fairly admitted in the Ex.M23 Letter that he slept while on duty for ½ hour due to ill health. In the reply in Ex.M-23, he has stated he met with an accident prior to the incident. Therefore, he was unwell on 29.11.2005. Except this incident, the appellant has not produced any kind of evidence to prove that though the past conduct of the respondent substantiate their contention that the respondent is liable for termination from service. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court considering the evidence on record passed well considered order and holding that the punishment imposed by the Company is disproportionate to the proved misconduct of the respondent. We are therefore of the view that the Labour court fairly exercised the discretion under Sec.11-A of the I.D.Act which was confirmed by the Learned Single Judge. Therefore we see no reasons 6 to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Learned Single Judge.

5. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE Ak

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court