Karnataka High Court
Chandrakantha vs The Divisional Controller on 4 January, 2018
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 56818 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANTHA
S/O. JNANASUNDARA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.779, 1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS,
REHAMANIA STREET,
CHAMARAJA MOHALLA
MYSORE-570 004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
KSRTC, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION,
BANNIMANTAP,
MYSORE-570 015. ... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 22.06.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO
THIS WRIT PETITION PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
MYSORE BY REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE LABOUR
COURT, MYSORE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION BY PERMITTING
THE PETITIONER TO PUTFORTH HIS CASE BY ADDUCING HIS
EVIDENCE AND CONTEST THE CASE ON MERITS OF THE CASE.
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, Mr. Chandrakantha, is aggrieved by the award dated 22.06.2017, passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru, whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, and has upheld the dismissal order passed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short).
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 12.11.2004, the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver-cum-conductor by the KSRTC. However, he remained unauthorizedly absent from 15.10.2014 till 26.11.2015, i.e., for over a period of one year. Therefore, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet; a departmental enquiry was conducted. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, by order dated 26.11.2015, the petitioner was -3- dismissed from his service. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said dismissal order, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). However, during the pendency of the dispute before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Labour Court. He neither examined a witness, nor submitted any document in order to buttress his case. On the other hand, the KSRTC did submit nineteen documents, although it did not examine any witness. After going through the documentary evidence submitted by the KSRTC, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim statement of the petitioner. Hence the present petition before this Court.
3. Mr. M. C. Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that since the petitioner's counsel Mr. MCB had retired from the case, after his -4- retirement, the petitioner had no way of knowing the relevant dates of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Labour Court in order to buttress his case. Hence the fault does not lie with the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to prove his case, the impugned award should be set aside by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned award.
5. It is, indeed, trite to state that a litigant has to be vigilant with regard to his rights and interest. A litigant who is slack in defending his rights, cannot be heard to complain that an opportunity of hearing has been denied to him. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the petitioner's advocate had retired after seeking the petitioner's permission. Therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that -5- his advocate had retired from his case. Hence the petitioner was duty-bound to engage the services of another counsel, or to personally appear before the learned Labour Court. But, for reasons best known to the petitioner, he chose to follow neither of these two options. According to the impugned award, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner by the learned Labour Court to adduce his evidence in support of his plea made in the claim statement. Even after his counsel had retired, opportunities had been given to the petitioner to establish his case. But the petitioner choose to be absent from the proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that opportunity was not given to the petitioner to prove his case.
6. Needlesstosay, the Labour Court could not have kept the case pending even after giving ample opportunities to the petitioner to establish his case. -6- Therefore, the learned Labour Court was justified in relying on the documentary evidence produced by the KSRTC. According to the KSRTC, the petitioner was not only absent from 15.10.2014 till 26.11.2015, but was also absent on seven previous occasions. For those seven previous mis-conducts, the petitioner had been punished lightly. Therefore, the KSRTC was certainly justified in dismissing the petitioner from service, as the petitioner refused to improve his conduct despite being punished lightly by the KSRTC.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award dated 22.06.2017. This petition being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE RD