Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs A Srinivasa on 31 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.16203 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU,
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI A.SRINIVASA
SON OF H.ANJANPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.7,
4TH MAIN, 17TH CROSS,
LAKKASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 030. ... RESPONDENT
(BY K.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 03.05.2010, PASSED BY
2
THE I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID
NO.110 OF 06 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent was initially appointed on contract basis as a driver with the petitioner. Thereafter he was selected as a trainee driver in 2000 and was subsequently confirmed. When his credentials were verified by the petitioner, it was found that the certificates produced by him could not be accepted. Hence, an article of charge was issued on the ground that he has secured employment on the basis of bogus certificates. He replied to the same denying the charges. An enquiry was held. The charges were held proved. He was dismissed from service. He filed a claim petition under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. By the impugned order the same was allowed. It was held that the removal of the name of the respondent from the select 3 list of trainee drivers is not justified. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Questioning the same, the management has preferred this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the certificate produced by the respondent namely, the transfer certificate is fraudulent. It does not pertain to him. It pertains to a person by name Gopalakrishna. On a further enquiry, it was found that the said certificate does not belong to the respondent. Therefore, it is a fake certificate. Hence, the order of dismissal from service is justified. That the Labour Court unnecessarily interfered with the order of dismissal. The same is disputed by the respondent's counsel. He contends that subsequently, a certificate in terms of Ex.D-1 was produced before the enquiring officer which would show the correct name of the respondent. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court does not call for any interference.
4
3. Heard learned counsels.
4. The notice and the proceedings were in pursuance to Rule 4(9) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982. The same reads as follows:-
4. Eligibility for Appointment and disqualifications for appointment Xxx Xxx
9) Any person who has given false or wrong information in the application will be disqualified and if appointed and found at a later date that he has given false or wrong information, his services shall be terminated."
The certificate produced by him at the time of seeking employment is produced herewith as Annexure-A. The same would indicate the name of the petitioner and his date of birth as 12-2-1972 with the Admission Register Number as 27/1985-86 and Transfer Certificate No.54 of 5 1986-87. When this was sought to be verified, it was found that the Admission Number and the Transfer Certificate Number do not match. Evidence was led-in to the said effect. The document at Ex.D-1 was thereafter procured. The same would indicate the Transfer Certificate Number as 14/85-86. The name of the respondent has been shown as Sri A.Srinivasa. The Admission Register Number has been shown as 56213 and the date of birth has been shown as 10-6-1970. Therefore, this evidence itself is clear to indicate that the respondent has filed fabricated documents on the basis of which he got employment, with reference to the Admission Register, which pertains to one Gopalakrishna and not him. In terms of Annexure-A, the date of birth is indicated as 12-2-1972 which is also erroneous. Ex.D-1 would indicate a totally different admission Number. Even the date of birth is shown as 10-6-1970. Therefore, nothing more needs to be proved. The document produced by the respondent is a fake document.
6
5. Therefore, as narrated hereinabove, Annexure-A does not pertain to the respondent at all. Even assuming that the submission is to be accepted, the respondent is very well aware that Ex.D-1 would show his date of birth as 10-6-1970. Annexure-M8 would indicate his date of birth as 12-2-1972. Even if his case is to be accepted, he is the one who submitted the application. His contention is that there is an error while issuing the Transfer Certificate and therefore the evidence of MW.2 who is the Assistant Headmaster of the School cannot be relied upon. Even if such a submission is to be accepted, then the date of birth is wrongly shown when submitting the documents. The petitioner is aware of his date of birth. Knowing his date of birth, he cannot furnish a false document. Therefore, his contention cannot be accepted. There is substantial material which indicates that the fraudulent document was produced by the respondent. The Labour Court on the other hand, committed a blunder in holding that it is the mistake committed by the School authorities. There is no 7 reference to indicate that it is a mistake committed by the School authorities. If at all there is a mistake then the Certificate cannot be relied upon. Firstly, the Transfer certificate number is different. Secondly, the Admission Register Number is different. Thirdly, the date of birth is different. Fourthly, the date of issuance of Ex.M-8 is on 15-9-1986 and the date of issuing of the Transfer Certificate vide Ex.M-9 dated 12-3-1992. Therefore, there are so many mistakes in the two certificates. The Labour Court therefore committed a blunder in accepting the evidence of MW.2 and the fraudulent certificates produced by the respondent by reasoning that it is a mistake committed by the Assistant Headmaster. None of the reasons assigned are in tune with the facts and evidence. The order of the Labour Court suffers from perversity. The respondent has obtained the employment by producing fabricated and false documents. No employment could continue based on a false documentation. 8
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated 3-5-2010 passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D. No.110 of 2006 vide Annexure-J is set aside. The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority is affirmed.
Rule made absolute.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-