Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs Venakta Ramaiah on 11 August, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN CPHE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THES THE Ll DAY OF AUGUST 261 L THE HON BLE MRIGUSTICE RAM. MC oH . N RE ie vy ; Writ Petition No. 2557 or 2011 L-KSRTC Writ PETITION No, 32236. oF 2010 (L:KSRTC) WP.2557/11 VENBA TARE S/O LATE AGED Ase "(BY SEEM C-BASAVARAJU, ADV) BTS PONDIENT wl, ADV. POR vo UTR CONST IILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 2 . PRAYING TO QUASI I ADDITI THIS WP. iS NSTITUTION OF i i Hi) AWARD PASSED BY um I i AN TALORE IN EDNG JPHIS wa AND BANGALL URES TRANSPORT ANTHINAGAR 2 ORE, ~ 860627: © CINK (KAVENKAT AIAH ras CREE | . RESPONDENT IBY SRI. MC BASAVARAJU, ADV) 'HIS aa & PILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF PRAYING TO ouASI! THE AWARD onl =
a Sone Wo oy Sane reget Mi yan € ponet Mae! joc ae pei ithe a 24 a 424010 PASSED J COURT, GANGA! IN LDLNOL? /OF DT?
OFFICER, ADDL. 1 THESE W.oPs. ARE COMING ON FOR PRILH GROUP. THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOY since common question of fact-and that of law arise for decision making, with the consent oF the learned Counsel for the. pa "ties, Dp itions are clubbed together, Tnally heard. and are dis) ne osed off common order in question the, award dt 2 24 1/9/9 2010 im TD No. 7/2007 of the IN Addl. Labour Céurt , Gangalore, in so far as it
-relales to. inaposition of the punishment of withholdi ag 3 'almual Increments cumulatively. as a measure of while deriving backwapes and benefits. though, continuity of service.
es purpose of terminal benefits. The scommectéd petition is filed by the Road Transport SUE SSS Gis OG CGS SG Corporation, calling in question the very same award in so far as it relates to invoking of Sec.11-A° of "the Jeet industrial Disputes Act. 1947, for short 2 Act, to"
modify the order dt. 27/7/2006 ef te renin ation | G Aid aes x 2 cern = ~ oD jor proved py im posing -- & miner punisament of withholding "3 annual increments cumulatively.
immed Counsel for the
3. Arun Ga witdraj. | Road Tra unsport Corpe ration. contends that the Labour Court having "held. proved, ~the misconduct of unauthorised. ebsence. the respondent. from 05, coupled with the finding 23/8/2004..to : [1 j2 thatthe } Enquity Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority ty "recorded findings which were not perverse, did | not cal "for interference with the quantum of "puis shim ent in exercise of Sec. l1-A of the ID Act. Learned Counsel hastens to add, the conductor was a nabitual absentee, since, while in the service of the Corporation, remained unauthorisediy absent on 9 ine em ate ght pa a0 oceasions, whence visited with: om punishmenis. Learned Counsel further contends.that- in the domestic enquiry, the responden® was & ter yea. reasonable opportunity of hearing. 7 caring. wherein the charves:. were held proved. coupled. with the dact that the workman remained absent evert after il/ 19 /20 05 up Lo in the the date of dismissal ie. :
mary jurisdiction unjustified.
submits that che Ww vorkman submitted leave applications . by oGertificate of Post, on 23/8/2004, 22/1/2005, i 99 haf 2005 an d 25/4/2005, seeking permission for leave of absence for the period from 23/8/2004 to eee 2/8 2908 which when not considered by the au 30 He ariiies as well as py the Labour Court. led to jal the charge was proved. According
6.
to the learned Counsel, the workman, while testlving before the Lapour Court on the allegation: OF victimization, produced medical certificates = dt.
15/11/2004 and 23/11/2004, Exs: We and Wd. and:
ome ig a von ety a
-ertificates of Posting Exs. WI). W2, WG) WY and. We, and the death certifics of his father, in certifying the death absence una uatho ised i absence: "We as ot proved, the Labour ( inn posing the punishment of wilhhelding 3 increments, cumulatively, and denying cons Seqi sent ial benefits, continuity of service and te pond "! dune jroo rs cS ued et is of no dispute that the workman, a "condisctor in the public Road Transport Corporation rem aained absent from 23/8/2004 to 11/12/2005 i ee us without prior permission or sanction of leave. cont disciplinary proceeding, when initiated against -the workman by issuing a chargesheet, elicited'a respot:
by way of an explanation dt. T6/1 1/2004, Ex MG. interalia contending that leave "applications. were. Certificate of forwarded to the Depot Mana z Post. seeking leave for he peried 23/8/2004 to 'Trrougn, in actively participated and cross~' oxanti med. th sswibness. jor the managernent, inckbhinaling was elicited, excep! a statement : "BPP HCALOPS, 'a. 23/8/2004, 22/1/2005, 22 (3) 2008 "and: "957 4) /2005, were not within the not wlec ige of the witness, Workman cid not enter the w ines. box to establish the fact of subr applications' seeking leave of absence due to medical
- Feeatment during the said period. much less ale ckniow ledgment by the Corporation.
\ A PT AI TET La
6. If the explanation to the articles of charge states that the workman was fit even as on 3] '9 / 2004, nevertheless, did not report to duty even : as on 66/11/2004. Strangely, the medics! certifies ies Exe. ; W3 & W4 were not proc huced ¢ along with th 1e explanation mexX.MO, This gives room ford oubt over the expla: nation of the workman.
7. Even as on the ermination of service petitioner did wot. ende: ayour to produce before the Diseipl inary Authority. 'the alleged leave applications, cal records relating to treatment. It evident ee of § the workman, for the first time % is only in the Fie . before the Labour Court, while testifying over the 6 al let ation: ef victimization. that Ex.Wl io WS. are my, "aot bro ined me) ¥ ey i, ae pow + gem rerun hese documents are not material < prod ced.
for rec ord Ging a Minding as to, whether the charges were proved, since material on record means such of materia as are placed before the Inquiring Authority in the bod Domestic Enquiry, since the Domestic Enquiry is heid to be fair and proper. Therefore Exs. W1 to-Wé inconsequential in the matter of recording ie ncdi ngs.dver-
the misconduct and perversity ofthe findi ngs.
by the Enquiry Officer, as well as the Di SCHED atin ary 7 Authority. In that view of the rnatter,.no.exception can be taken to the redsons. findmgs. and coriclusions g arrived at by the Labour Court,.bolding the charges of the Inquiring as Bisciplina ye At ithority, were not DEPVversc.
&. The re is force ta the submission of Sri. Arun So Goviadaral, learned Counsel, that the Labour Court was "t, to held ay lnoaret hy \ es ond fin a Lidia ea rm em f ioe hy yet ont good oo ~ . not: ustilied in invoking Sec.11 dismissal as grossly pests ign pond Fa rot ~ fron veel et Na ~~ jot po owt Ypsod a oP ww joo sd wrest ot er ood ere ca rs pom, faa) disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct ned 'proves d so as to substitute the order of punishment ol dismissal to one of reinstatement by withholding 3 me annual increments cumulatively. It is a matter of record that the workman suffered punishmenis.on 9 occasions ir when he had - remained:
seg Jomo en Segal pul fae) a, gen Necouit rob iad poh unauthorisedly absent and therelore canal but be held.
to be a habitual absentee, which. is. gross indise ipline. . The very fact that the petitioner: 'had "verained unauthorisedly absent.for an. extended period of time from 23/8/2004 to 11/2/2005 and tmerealfer upto 27/7/2006, thie. date. of. dismissal, dic nol warrant a finding thet the. punishracnt of.dismissal was grossly disproportionate to. the misconduct held proved.
Circumstances es sntial tor invoking Sec.11-A of the ID Act, were mom existent and theretore the Labour Cour:
re snot justified in invoking Sec.11-A of the 1D Act. 9, A Tyvision Bench of this court. in tne case of
- BDrvisiowan ConTROLLER, | RTC, BaGaLKoT VS.
"RAGHAVENDRA MADHAVA KEarti} followed the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. i ok by BURN & Co. LTD. VS. IT'S WORKMEN & OTHERS? nolding that unauthorised absence is a grave miscondu of and grave violation of discipline, greatly jeopardized. the functioning of the establishment, more appropriately oti employees of a Road * Pransport ¢ 'orporatio: a reraalning:. absent, Having serious. "repercussions con the into existence wnoder: the. Road i Transport Corporation eda treatment. of such dereliction of duty with: certain aind an t. 'of seriousness. Their Lordships | of the" Division." Bench further followed the observation 'of the Apex Court in the case of KERALA
- SOLVENT ExTRACTIONS Lrp. vs. A. UNNIKRISHNAN & ANOTHER? ck icilal tendencies io grant unwarranied reliels by merely basing on misplaced
- sympatity y. Semerosity and private benevolence. AR '3p OO) KALE (1994) FLL R88
10. in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS, SARDAR SINGH, the Apex Court having regard to absence, from 4 duties of employees, observed that the conduct of remaining absent, without obtairungde ave in advance, is.
nothing bul irresponsible in extre me and « can hardly ¥eb 58 justified. In addition it was observed fiat it is the burden of the workman, that there was no tiegligence or lack of interest fo establs PMiaterial.
ATAKA ROAD Le on "Norte, EASTERN fooed ocd TRANSPORT Cor ORATION VS. ASHAPPA & AROTHERS, the Apex Coult having regard to the observations made by it AR SINGH'S . in Sea tune CORPORATION VS. Sz ease Su pra'and in STATE OF U.P. VS. SHEO SHANKER LAL SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS®, keeping in mind the tacts of ot he ca Se that the workman had remained absent for 3 three. years, coupled with unauthorised absence on 2004 SC AGI AER 2006 SC" 2164 several occasions in the past, held that rem aining absent for long time cannot be said to be Ani nor misconduct, more so when the Corporation rims a@-fieci of buses providing public utility seéPvices in the result, the writ petit ion Hled<by-the Koad Transport Corporation, is allowed io exercise of the order of furisdiction under See onl dismissal, isc Ss qua shed i. Claim peiition under Sec. 1O(4-A} of the Act, fied be the workiian, §8 rejected.
Wi rH _pet ition' flied by the workman is dismissed.
200613 SOC 276