Karnataka High Court
Sri J S Manjunath vs The Divisional Controller on 18 August, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 187 DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 ~~ BEFORE | THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY | | WRIT PETITION No. 29188 OF. 2616 ie KSRTC) BETWEEN : SRI J. S. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DRIVER, BATCH No.2753 KSRTC, CHICKMAGALUR ] DIVISION, R/O. PANAGAR " NEAR SUNNADAGUDU 2... BALUOPET POST & VIL EAGE LO SAKALESHPUR (6 0 oO HASSAN DISTRICT. - PETTTIONER (BY SRI M.C.PYATIL ADV) fTIE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER 3E HICKMAGALUE DIVISION RESPONDENT (BY. SMT. HARCRENUKA, ADV) "THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 927 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL POR _ SRECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR COURT AT ~ ACHECKMAGALUR IN RESPECT OF IDA No. 45/04 AND QUASH ° THE AWARD DY. 7/8/2008. ANNICK.A, , THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRE.HEARING "BR ~ GROUP THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: See eS oe Se . 2 EX one A bad ORDER
The petitioner when appointed as a Driver in the Public Road Transport Corporation produced a Transter os Certificate No.18/82-83 certifying te have passed 6% > standard from Government Higher Primary School. Bhage. which, on verification revealed was fabricated. The workman having made.~a. false representation, disciplinary proceeding was imitiated..by. issuing an Articles of charee, followed by appointing an Inquiring Ege, 3 VEG. DY Appolnuiig, g Authority, who extended. teasonabie opportunity of hearing to 'the worktnat. and submitted a report dated 31.12. i9es, . holding the, : charge proved. The Disciplinary "Authority "By order dated 20.5.2004 "dismissed. the petitiotier from service, which led the petitioner filing a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial "Pisputes Act, 1947, for short TD Act, ce registered 'as IDA 45 {2004 before the Labour Court, ~ Chikmagalur. That petition was opposed by fling statement of objections by the corporation. In the e "premise of pleadings of parties. the Labour Court [ya eee bpd framed issues of which the first issue related to the validity of the domestic enquiry. Parties entered 'trial, whence the Road Transport Corporation exanimed the ~ Inquiring Authority and marked -44_ documents as 10.7.2007 answered the issue in the negative "holding the domestic enquiry. as otto fair and: proper. Thereafterwards, the Read. ; Sransport ~ Corporation examined the. Asst. "Security" inspector and the Headmistress: of the Shoot as MWe l.and 2 respectively. Petitioner tuo. was "examined "as WW-L when no document was marked.
2, Labour Court having regard to the material on "record a nd the evidence both oral and documentary marshaled i the domestic enquiry, accepted as credible evidence the testimony of MW-2 the Headmistress of the 'school who testified to the fact that since there was no "person. by name Kadegowda holding the post of Head "master of the said school and that the original admission resister did mot disclose the name of the petitioner as having been admitted to the school and completed VI Std., hence the transfer certificate was rot issued by the school, and was fabricated, accerdingly, ~ by the award dt. 7.8.2008, dismissed the 'petition, Hence this petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadmgs and examined the award impugned, the question fer decision making is, whether in the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the claim petition ? A. The answer to this question need not detain the Court for alorig in the light of the testimony of MW-2 the Headmaster of the school who testified to the records Stating that the. petitioner was not admitted to the said school as his. name was not found in the admission , "register and that the person by name Kadegowda who
- had signed the Transfer certificate Ex.M27 was not the Headmaster of the school and therefore. Ex.MO7 was "fabricated. This finding of the Labour court is not g . 4 |
-
L Let a shown to suffer from any illegality occasioning grave injustice to the petitioner.
5. The observations of the Supreme Court in 'UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M.BHASKARAN & ORS)' in the circumstances, is apposite: .
"When once fraud on ihe ¢ et ployer is detected, the appointment orders" "th emselv es are tainted and vitiated- by fraud - and cacts of cheating om the part ot the erp lavees. The appointment " orders are liable to" 'be recalled and voidabl e at the. 'eption ot the employer concerned. O: nee the fraud of the employees in getting such employment was detected, the employees were. "proceeded against in : have: their say "and thereafter have been "removed : from service. Orders of removal : would' araount to recalling of fraudulently "obtaine ed erroneous appointment ofders which were avoided by the employer after folowing 7 the due process of law and complying with the principles of natural justice. Frauculenthy obtained appoiniment orders could be Bee aie a OO UG CSUR ZS CSS as ST 6 legitimately treated as voidable at the option .
of the ermployer and could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely beewiise the employees have contirnied in se rice for a number of years on the. bacis of | eh fraudulently obtained em ployment © . corde: rs | cannot create any equity Lay their fay our OF any a estoppel in favour of the e mplovee' _
6. To the similar effect are a siseatone of the Apex Court, in KERAL A SOLV ENT 2x1 PRACTIONS v. A.UNNIKRISHNAN Be ANKE . and the bservations of a Division Rench of ib ts Cour in? ¥ HE MANAGEMENT OF VISL v. B. V EERANN, Bs G ow DA 'PATIL. ati reen eRe eee ae eee a elition devoid of merit is rejected.
ce ~ ~ BERS.
eee eee