Karnataka High Court
M Prabhu vs M/S The Management Of Skf Bearings India ... on 9 March, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
W.P.No.15956/2013 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
M.PRABHU
S/OR.M.EWARAN FRANCIS,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.77, ANNAI MARY ILLAM,
I MAIN ROAD, I CROSS,
S.K.GARDENS,
BANGALORE-560 046.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.N.KRISHNA REDDY, ADV.,)
AND:
M/S THE MANAGEMENT OF
SKF BEARINGS INDIA LTD.,
PLOT NO.2, BOMMASANDRA
INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE-562 158,
REP. BY ITS
SENIOR MANAGER (HRD).
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.N.MURTHY, SENIOR ADV., FOR
SRI K.SOMASHEKAR, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DATED 30.3.12 VIDE ANNX-G
PASSED BY 1ST ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN
ID NO.364/06 AND FURTHER ALLOW THE CLAIM
STATEMENT FILED IN ID NO.364/06 VIDE ANNX-E AND
FURTHER DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT
2
TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN HIS ORIGINAL POST
WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND WITH FULL BACK
WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE
OF HIS REINSTATEMENT TOGETHER WITH ALL THE
CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL BENEFITS WILL
AVAILABLE TO HIM IN LAW TO SECURE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the award dated 30.03.2012 vide Annexure-G passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D.No.364/2006 and further allow the claim statement filed in I.D.No.364/2006 vide Annexure-E and further direct the respondent-Management to reinstate the petitioner in his original post with continuity of service and with full backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of his reinstatement together with all consequential and incidental benefits available to him.
2. The petitioner was issued with a showcause notice-cum-charge sheet for remaining unauthorizedly absent for a period of 21 days. The petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent from 03.05.2001 to 3 30.08.2001, which is an offence under Clause 26.6 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The petitioner replied to the said showcause notice-cum- charge sheet as per Annexure-C dated 10.09.2001 stating therein that he was suffering from chest pain and requested to regularize his absence. Subsequently, the domestic enquiry was initiated and the Enquiry Officer has held to have proved the misconduct and he was discharged from service with effect from 08.04.2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed I.D.No.364/2006 before the Labour Court, Bangalore, under Section 2(A) r/w Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1988, praying to set aside the order of discharge dated 08.04.2002 and also sought for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The Labour Court by its order dated 30.03.2012 rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner.
3. The Labour Court framed as many as three issues i.e., (i) Whether D.E held against the first party is fair, proper and valid?, (ii) Whether II party is justified 4 in discharging the I party from service?, and (iii) what relief?. Issue Nos.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative and issue No.3 held as per final order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Labour Court is erroneous and perverse in nature. It is further submitted that case of the petitioner has not been considered as he remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 21 days unintentionally, because he was suffering from chest pain. It is further submitted that the evidence adduced by the parties as well as the documents produced are not taken into consideration by the Labour Court.
5. In support of his case, the petitioner was examined himself as W.W.1 and examined one more witness as W.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.W.1 to W.3. On behalf of the 2nd party, the Enquiry Officer was examined as M.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.M.1 to M.18.
6. After going through the evidence of M.W.1 who is the Enquiry Officer and W.W.2 who is examined on 5 behalf of the 1st party, the Labour Court rejected the claim petition of the petitioner.
7. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent- Management submits to dismiss the writ petition as the petitioner was discharged from service not only on the basis of finding of the Enquiry Officer, but also after having examined the past records of service which is required under Clause 26.6 of the Certified Sanding Orders of the Company before awarding any punishment and also to decide whether any lenient view could be taken. From the past records of service, it can be seen that the petitioner was cautioned for absence vide letter dated 17.08.1995; warned for absence vide letter No.DA/A-25/96 dated 26.08.1997; severely warned for absence vide letter No.DA/J-25/97 dated 28.06.1997; finally warned for absence vide letter No.DA/D-41/97 dated 19.12.1997; severely and finally warned for absence vide letter No.DA/M-6/98 dated 08.07.1998; basic salary was reduced by way of punishment for absence vide letter No.DA/M-255/99 dated 28.05.1999 and demoted by way of punishment 6 for absence vide letter No.KDA/J-282/99 dated 12.11.1999.
8. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the acts of misconduct of the petitioner has been proved and the same was decided before the Labour Court. It is also held by the Labour Court that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the lenient view could be taken to award a lesser punishment, but the past records of service of the petitioner between 1995 and 1999 goes to show that it is adverse to the interest of the petitioner - 1st party and in the best interest of the Institution, punishment order has been passed.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in W.A.No.2829/2009 (The Management of M/s Vikrant Tyres Ltd., Vs. Sri T.Venkatesh) dated 4.6.2013, wherein it is held that for an unauthorized absence of 13 days, the punishment imposed is fair and proper.
7
10. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
11. By independently looking into the showcause notice-cum-charge sheet dated 4.9.2001, the petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent for 21 days. It is true that human being suffers from ailment, chest pain etc., but the same should be supported by the medical documents. In the instant case, the petitioner has sent a leave letter. It is the case for consideration by imposing proportionate punishment. The principle is, the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In the instant case, the petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 21 days and by looking into the past records of service, he was severally and finally warned for absence on 8.7.1998 and demoted by way of punishment for absence on 12.11.1999. Hence, he may not be useful for the respondent-Management. The Labour Court held that the enquiry is fair, proper and valid. 8
12. Accordingly, I held that there is no ground made out to interfere in the order of the Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PB