Karnataka High Court
Sri P Surendrachary vs The Management Of Bapuji Polytechnic on 6 September, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
W.A. No.184/2008 (L-TER)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
W.A. No.184/2008 (L-TER)
BETWEEN :
SRI P SURENDRACHARY
S/O.P.GANGADHACHARY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KADAJJI,
DAVANGERE TALUK & DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT
(By SRI. S V SHASTRI, ADV.)
AND :
THE MANAGEMENT OF
BAPUJI POLYTECHNIC. SHABANUR-577 004,
DAVANGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENT
(By SRI. R GOPAL, ADV.)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.14534/2007
dated 09.10.2007, confirming the Award of the Labour Court,
Bangalore passed in KID No. 100/1999; consequent upon allowing
writ appeal directing the Management to reinstate the appellant into
service with all benefits including the cost of this writ appeal.
This Writ Appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day,
V.SURI APPA RAO. J., delivered the following :
2
W.A. No.184/2008 (L-TER)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2007 passed in W.P. No. 14534/2007.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :
The appellant joined the service of the respondent as Helper in Carpentry Division on temporary basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.650/- per month for a period of two years subject to certain conditions. On 04.11.1997 he was kept under suspension by the Principal for his misconduct. Therefore, he has got issued legal notice to the Management to pay the suspension allowances. The Management issued reply and informed the appellant that he has been terminated from service w.e.f. 10.09.1998. Thereafter, the appellant raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the order of termination and urged various grounds he filed a claim statement before the Labour Court, Hubli in K.I.D. No.100/1999. The Management resisted the claim of the appellant and filed objections defending their action and sought for dismissal of the dispute raised by the appellant. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the 3 W.A. No.184/2008 (L-TER) Labour Court passed award dated 09.05.2007 dismissing the Reference filed by the appellant. The appellant therefore filed a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge to quash the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Hubli.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the finding on the aspect of misconduct recorded by the Labour Court, being a finding of fact based on proper consideration of the evidence on record, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Management, Madurantakam Co-Op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Viswanathan (AIR 2005 SC 1954) rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this writ appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not given opportunity and no charges are framed against him. No enquiry is conducted and his services was terminated abruptly without notice on the ground that he threatened 4 W.A. No.184/2008 (L-TER) the Principal and Office staff and also to the residence for suspending him from duty.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent - Management submitted that the appellant was appointed on temporary basis on consolidated salary of Rs.650/- per month for a period of two years and that the appellant threatened the Principal and other staff members. The Principal of the College objected him and warned him not to indulge in such activities. Therefore, the appellant entered the Chambers of the Principal along with some other persons. He also entered into the residence and threatened his family members with dire consequences. Therefore, based on the attitude of the appellant, the Management terminated him from the services. Admittedly, the appellant was not served with any charges, no enquiry was conducted. The appellant is an employee of the Management on a consolidated salary of Rs.650/- per month for a period of two years. His services were not regularised by the Management. Therefore, considering the serious allegations levelled against the appellant, the respondent - Management rightly terminated the services of the appellant. The management adduced 5 W.A. No.184/2008 (L-TER) evidence of MW-1 and placed 12 documents before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has assessed the evidence adduced by both parties and came to the conclusion that the appellant has misbeheaved with the Principal and dismissed the dispute.
6. The concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge clearly indicate that the appellant was indulged in gross misconduct while discharging duty. Therefore, the appellant was rightly terminated from services.
7. Considering the allegations and nature of charges levelled against the appellant, we are of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed. However the appellant is entitled for terminal benefits if eligible according to law.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Rbv