Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs C Nagaraju on 8 March, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs C Nagaraju on 8 March, 2011

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

  Na 96 E2313 1.;  =  ..

IN THE HIGH CCRERT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THEE THE 8% DAY Cr'? MARCH, 2911

BEFORE

THE HQNELE MR. JUSTICE mu. VENUGGPALA GQwp£s._ 'T._V

WRIT PETITEON No.3408,!2a06 €L~i<$mC1;f""" fj;~ [  

BETWEEN: 
1. Karnataka State Road
Transport Cerporation,
Central Offices, '
Bangaiore, represented by
The Chief Law Offices".

2. The Divisienaé Coratrcsitmg' _ 
KaS.R.T.C.,   . 
Baragalere €entrai Div§$'E*orng:"  
Bangaiore. '   . 

 'é ' _    :PETZTIONERS
(By Sri 8.L»Sanj€av, A.dv«..A}-- _  
mo:  V % .' 

5;'-:3 .' Céii L:+z'§>vi4;;éip--;3a,
Age:-'§ aV!.39u?Lvv:.4E;'~}.Vyea;'r,:s.;

 R,/3. B3g}EE"éaE§i, *«.'§E_§;~;iri§ peat,
 '!imeE<aE ";7T;_aE:;Es:;' , 

 §a.ngaEar& .R{,s:ja§ bistrict,

  K4....Sri;'1§va$a; ﬁ.,dv,)

:RESE3*Q¥\§DE§\3T

 firgsé petsmn :3 féfaé under mscigs 226 mm 22? 3?

 '§§"2$..{fé}€Z¥S{§tut§0{§ $5 Ergﬁéa, praying ta Quagh {F29 i&Wa§'ﬁ Q?



r--.>

the 9i'Ei'"iCi[i)aE Labeur Ceurt, Bangeiere dated 24.8.2{}O5
passed in I.D.Psio.85/2002 vide 1'3\i'Ii'§€)(LJF'€ --C.

This eetitieri eeming en fer hearing thie day, the
Cciiiit made the feliowingz

ORDER

The management being aggrieved by the Labour Court directing reinstateiiientp of th'e":'e--§:f;v0n'tie'nAt ii by withhoiding two annual incremiefats-~'witn'ii..ee'iﬁ':i'leifi'vie'*<:;_*A effect has ﬂied this writ petitionf

2. The i'E',*S§)O¥"i('§E;i'3t ;' wAe.r1<u:rriai:'.._.iLs e.'Ce.r:'du_e§tor in the petitioner --- Corporat'i'o:i"i,-. 'i--*l_€f}.eieeiéibisent from duty without iirioi pi;-tied from 22.3.2009 to 3.8.2800."'«uFoi" the'A:.:u.ne*LJ:t'r:<erised absence, Articles er' Chergeeias if$SLiJ_y@("I"~b'y t-heioetitioner on 3.8.2006. The ie.a:tei~.1;Nas. sL:.bjecte'dWt'c}V eiiquiry, Based on the enquiry "f'eVii!e:'iis;ing the prescribed procedure, the DiS4EZiA;.}.ii'i'1ai"§f~'}43;iﬁ€ii;iOi'§f£3»' having found that the Charged _.f'.fj;-V'«iii-»i.sceiiCi€iet'3'is ereved; peesed an erder ef dismissal ef the ;e'i'i:ifipi!g>_i,ff~;€;e free: service en 13312091! The workmen raised 'iii"'-'.e_'e5ieeiii:e erie iiied e eieiie ewe? §.1G(4--z5i) oi' the % iv 1 9/rm which shows that, the etnpfoy'ee was invoived earner in simiiaz" rnisconducts of remaining unauthonsediy absent on six occasions. teamed counsef submitted that, had E><.E'~/320 been taken into Consideration and aopreciatedV.,'s't'_ht3. direction to reinstate with reduced punishment have men passed. According to the teamed 't.he.re 3 is Errationaiity and Eflegaiity commA:tte;t'Ar::~,/Qtiég Court.

4, Sri K, Sreenivasa, |eé':=néd_VV cook:-s.t§E'L31p;§}earEng for the respondent ~ Vxaf.o«--rkn--}an;V-,on.__=.th'a_ other hand; submittedtttthétgi:hefE§ot;3:o%tett§o:§Axhésytyénot suffered any Eoss on account of theVVVVo.:';EjjVg3Eo'\,<tdd'»1temaéning absent from duty between .V22.I3:2QQG.t.o and, in fact, the absence ,.:~V"Vhemg.,':_j':'Ew%,f;é¢ @§§,f"""fo%* jtrstifiabie reasons. Learned €i:)__§.,s't*=g_e;?I' ts:d't:n*r§tta3d"_1.that, the Labour Court in exercise of its jurEstE.i_ttion.."trhoVdified the punishment and hangs; _._/A3"%. §V¥7:-1Zet"f€F€i'5C'ft?§ in the matter is not cralied tot'. V. I have Q€I'EiS€€f the record, é, the noént for Consideration is:

t Whether the Labour Court is justified iri setting aside the order ef dismissal and in imeesihg the reduced punishment?

7, The findings recorded that, the d0_i'ii.€§:$<tiC'r.vV enquiry heici by the Management againet the res.;Jhndeh1t'--iréf-.-_V.' ~ just and fair and that, there is; heither..aey pe-ririetshy in the findings recorded nor was there any vii{{it§~:'hislatior_ii' .:"tii3..eV"<_:

Management are wen founded.'hT"i--2.e fact;V-fihdi{:d.f$iu«t:i:~o.r.i.ti~es i,e., Qiscépiihary Auth<>ri__ty and_.._.iihe_ '~£._aboii'r"~ Cgurtf have concurrentiy found the se%£id«'Ta.s{:ecftsj. agéijihfsii;-.,1;i":e workman. in the Vei'r':?::'m:§}EanVt::e§', "'i=i<h'ethe%""'thVe Labour Cetzrt was justified in é:<eri;ss~;ir;1'r';=e§;..;§'oi:,.fe.:r under s.:1.1»-A of the Act is the ohiy peitétfor cohsid-era.--tiVoh.

. A it is trueVV"th"AaVt, E:-<.iVE28 - the past history sheet time .heti'téi'£§e:js.3 into consideration by the Labour Court. Hewﬁyiﬁr,'.-t§'ié§'..-?"?tiSCGf'i{fUC§C aiieged against: the workman ie i."»-'~.__Vrrht me" piiferage of the funds ef the Cerparatieh Oi' V' ﬁi".;§_L,i'$,i_i'"i:.A§.'§T";' any monetary fees to the Corporation. The Labour hag exercised its pewer wider Stile ei the mitt L- ,x 6 Consitiering the nature at misconduct neid as proved and the unauthorised absence being not for a very tong period, in my oginion, the Labour Ceaitt was justified in exercising its ptiwer under S.:i1iA of the Act. However, punishment imposed on the workman is not pE'O;)(}i"t3i*{:}_'fiEi_f€2Vv; As against the withhoitiing of twin increments it there ought to have been the V'Jit§'3¥'i;:(A3§C3i:E'_'iQ' jofﬂat4'ieeist.. increments with cumulative_reffect«.'*;_"'i--WithV.7-hithé:sé;i'ici"* modification, the direction reins't~at;éi:--ni5ent':§ with centiriuity of service doesgiiénnt cail f<>tr"i:rn_ts;tieArence';A In the resuit,Vthe --a~i.i¢vnti.%§d'--'-in part. This irnpuijnveti.,:}€3iviié'i=ti:stands modified?" As against the ;3unisiii*=if:_'t=3ii"it withhoitiing of two _._inCrem%:énts~ ;3ern9i'a'né:nt|y&,: there shail be withhoiditig of four AV'v_iﬁ»iZf?€3iTTi€3f1_f%S'A«.§/\£i7i;E'i~«.§Ui'i"ii,i§€:3'EE\/8 effect. In other aspects, the Labaur Cou rt stands uptisld.

iiéo iivostsi iziété 9*;

V 'siatt

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court