Karnataka High Court
Channabassappa S/O Sanganbassappa ... vs The Divisional Controller Nekrtc on 30 August, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No. 205209/2015 (CL-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
Chanabassappa S/o Sanganabassappa Takkalki
Age: 40 years, Occ: Ex. Driver Cum Conductor
At. Post. Rakkasagi, Tq. Muddebihal
Dist. Bijapur - 586 203
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Bheemaraya M.N., Advocate)
AND:
The Divisional Controller
NEKRTC, Raichur Division
Raichur - 584 101
...Respondent
(By Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Advocate)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the
order dated 24.08.2013 passed in references No.1/213 on the file of the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Gulbarga vide Annexure-'D', etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group this
day, the court made the following;
2
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga in reference No.1/2013.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cum- Conductor on 6.8.2008. He remained unauthorizedly absent for duties without permission from the higher authorities from 18.11.2008 to 4.4.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner was terminated from the service. The termination order was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel Sri. Bheemaraya M.N., appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court grossly erred in not considering the petitioner as a workman and the applicability of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 'the Act' for short). It was contended that the petitioner was seriously ill and was taking treatment 3 as an in-patient in the hospital for infective hepatitis and remained absent for duty after giving leave application to the in-charge Depot Manager. The medical certificate was also produced, but the same was not considered by the Labour Court in the right perspective. Further, it was contended that the respondent was required to comply with the provisions of Section 33(2) (b) of the Act before passing of an order of dismissal against the petitioner. Based on these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned order, allowing the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri. Subhash Mallapur, appearing for the respondent-Corporation placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2596/2005 (DD-26.09.2005) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Small Industries Corporation -vs- Lakshminarayanan, Appeal (civil) 4782/2006 would contend that the petitioner was admittedly a trainee and was undergoing training as a Driver- 4 cum-Conductor. It is only after successful completion of the training period, his case for regular appointment would have been considered by the Corporation. It is immediately after the appointment on 6.8.2008, the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from 18.11.2008. No satisfactory explanation was offered for the unauthorized absence. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner.
5. Having heard the rival submission of the parties, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was a trainee and was undergoing training as Driver-cum- Conductor.
6. As could be seen from the material on record that the petitioner was appointed on 6.8.2008 and immediately after 18.11.2008 he remained unauthorizedly absent. Though, an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the reasons of ill-health for remaining absent by placing on record a medical certificate, the said medical 5 certificate was not appreciated by the Labour Court for the reason that the doctor who has issued the certificate was not examined. There was no opportunity to the respondent- Corporation to cross-examine the doctor to discern the truth. Mere production of medical certificate would not be suffice to come to the conclusion that the absence of the petitioner to his duties was a bonafide. Yet another reason which the Labour Court has assigned to disbelieve the said medical certificate is that the doctor who has issued medical certificate has not mentioned in-patient or out-patient number, date and time of examination, etc, in his medical certificate. These reasons assigned by the Labour Court cannot be ignored or sidelined to appreciate the medical certificate at this stage. The petitioner being the trainee was required to be serious in attending to the duties.
7. As aforesaid, no satisfactory explanation was offered for unauthorized absence that too immediately after the appointment i.e., about three months after the 6 appointment. The misconduct of the petitioner is apparent. Though it may be accepted that the petitioner was not appointed under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, the factum of he being appointed as the trainee, cannot be disregarded. In such circumstances, the order of dismissal passed by the respondent-Corporation and confirmed by the Labour Court is justifiable.
8. There is no perversity or irregularity or infirmity found in the order impugned herein.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL Ct: RRJ