Karnataka High Court
M/S Beml Limited vs Mr Shankar Nayaka on 13 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37739
WP No. 30593 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 30593 OF 2012 (L-DE)
BETWEEN:
M/S BEML LIMITED,
EQUIPMENT DIVISION,
MYSORE COMPLEX, MYSORE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER(LEGAL).
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. S. NARASIMHASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. SHANKAR NAYAKA,
S/O LATE JAVARA NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.47, G BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR
MYSORE 570 017.
Digitally signed by ...RESPONDENT
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 PASSED BY
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MSORE IN SERIAL APPLICATION
NO.1/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37739
WP No. 30593 of 2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is applicant in Serial Application No.1/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore (herein after referred to as 'Tribunal' for short), whereby, the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as 'ID Act' for short) was dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds:
a. That the Tribunal has erroneously rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act without considering that the District Caste Verification Committee ('DCVC' for short) has passed an order that the respondent-workman does not belong to 'Scheduled Tribes' and comes under the category of 'Parivara', which is not categorized under scheduled tribes, and that the action on part of -3- NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 the petitioner in dismissing the respondent-workman is based on the order passed by the DCVC.
b. That the Tribunal has erroneously relied upon the Government order issued by the Social Welfare Secretariat, Social Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka without considering that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at Ex.A-25 dated 12.02.2004 has given an endorsement that the caste to which the respondent-
workman belongs cannot be treated as a scheduled tribes either in the State list or under the Central list.
c. That the Tribunal has erroneously rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act without considering the settled principles of law while considering an application under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act.
d. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
i. Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal -4- NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 Development and Others1 (Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another) ii. Cholan Roadways ltd. Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam (Cholan Roadways ltd).2 iii. Additional General Manager, Human Resource, Bharath Heavy Electricals ltd.
Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde3 (Additional General Manager, Human Resource, Bharath Heavy Electricals ltd.)
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent justifying the order passed by the Tribunal would urge the following grounds:
a. There was a confusion that the caste 'Parivara' and 'Nayaka' are one and the same coming under the 'Scheduled Tribes', the appropriate Government vide gazette notification dated 25.04.2002, clarified that the 'Parivara' communities has been treated as synonym to the 'Nayaka', and shall not be considered as 'Scheduled Tribes' any more, and 1 AIR 1995 SC 94.2
(2005) 3 SCC 241.3
(2007) 5 Scc 336.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 further clarified that the appointments made in respect of the person belonging to 'Parivara', who had obtained employment under 'Scheduled Tribes' quota as 'Nayaka' shall be treated as appointment under 'General Merit' category with effect from the date of the order.
b. That the Government order was passed on 25.04.2002 and the order of DCVC pursuant to which, imposing punishment of dismissal, is without considering the Government notification, which had given the benefits under the Government orders. c. That the petitioner failed to construe the difference between a 'wrong' caste certificate and a 'false' caste certificate and the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar was a 'false' certificate and moreover when the Government order clearly states that the 'Parivara' community was hitherto considered as 'Nayaka' and the benefits drawn by any in such cases, shall not be considered as 'false', but only thereafter, shall be considered as 'General Merit'. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act seeking approval in the present facts and circumstance of the case?"
6. Respondent was initially appointed as a Technician (Fitter) and taken on regular rolls of the petitioner during the year 1989, at the time of appointment on regular basis to the post of Technician (Fitter) by letter dated 01.05.1992, in support of the appointment, the respondent submitted an affidavit and a form of caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar stating that he belonged to the 'Nayaka' community which is described as 'Scheduled Tribes'. During the year 2005, caste certificate submitted by the respondent and other co-employee were sent for verification to the Deputy Commissioner, DCVC, Mandya District, the caste verification committee submitted that the respondent- workman belongs to 'Parivara' community, which does not -7- NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 come under the 'Scheduled Tribes' category. On the order of the DCVC, the petitioner issued show-cause notice calling upon the respondent-workman as to why he should not be dismissed from service on account of his act of producing 'false certificate' which was meant for reserved category. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent-workman, the competent authority issued an order on 16.05.2009, dismissing the respondent-workman from service, after issuance of letter, dispute was pending before the Tribunal, accordingly, application under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act seeking approval was filed and simultaneously along with the order of dismissal. Section 33(2)(b) ID Act reads as under:
"33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.
(1) XXX (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such -8- NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 dispute [or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman]
(a) XXX
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer."
7. The Apex Court in the case of Cholan Roadways ltd. has held at paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 as under:
"18. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal while considering an application for grant of approval has succinctly been stated by this Court in Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out as regards the validity -9- NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the delinquent, keeping in view the fact that if the permission or approval is granted, the order of discharge or dismissal which may be passed against the delinquent employee would be liable to be challenged in an appropriate proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Martin Burn case this Court stated: (AIR p. 85, para 27) "A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. It may be that the Tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on the evidence on the record. (Sec Buckingham &
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739
WP No. 30593 of 2012
Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the
Company)"
19. It is further trite that the standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry vis-à-vis a criminal trial is absolutely different. Whereas in the former "preponderance of probability" would suffice; in the latter, "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" is imperative
20. The Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 3.3(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was required to bear in mind the aforementioned legal principles. Furthermore, in a case of this nature the probative value of the evidence showing the extensive damages caused to the entire left side of the bus; the fact that the bus first hit the branches of a tamarind tree and then stopped at a distance of 81 ft therefrom even after colliding with another bus coming from the front deserved serious consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. The nature of impact clearly demonstrates that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently."
8. The law is well settled that, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act is a limited one, and the jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b)
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 ID Act cannot be equated with that of Section 10 ID Act, the Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act is required to see whether a prima facie case has been made out as regards the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the delinquent and the Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act was required to bear in mind, the legal principles that in a domestic enquiry preponderance of probability would suffice unlike in criminal trial, where the proof requires beyond all reasonable doubt is imperative.
9. In the instant case, the respondent was appointed in the petitioner-Establishment and while submitting his application, he has submitted the affidavit at Annexure-A7 and the form of caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar at Annexure-A8.
10. The State Government vide gazette notification dated 25.04.2022 clarified that the 'Parivara' community was treated as synonym of 'Nayaka' earlier, shall not be
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 considered as 'ST' anymore and further clarified that the appointments made in respect of persons belonging to 'Parivara' who had obtained employment under 'ST Quota' as 'Nayaka' shall be treated as appointments with effect from the date of the order, the relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"The entire matter has been reviewed. It is considered necessary to prevent non-ST persons from availing benefits meant for ST persons, Hence the following order:
Government order No.SWD 713 SAD 83, Bangalore, Dated 11th March 2002.
In partial modification of Government Orders read at (1) and (2) Government are pleased to order as under :-
1. The benefit of reservation in admission to educational Institutions and educational concessions extended to Pariwara, Talwara, Maaleru, Kuruba communities in G.Os read at (1) and (2) above and Besta and Koli Communities accordingly cease. All persons of these communities who have obtained ST Caste certificates shall surrender them immediately to the issuing authority for cancellation. They shall not be
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 liable for penal action provided they surrender their certificates. The issuing authority shall cancel such certificates.
2. Wherever it comes to the notice of the appointing authority that a ST certificate has been issued to a persons belonging to these communities and which has not been surrender or cancelled necessary action shall be taken for cancellation of such certificate by the issuing authority, with due regard to the principles of natural justice.
The benefits of reservation obtained by the persons in para (1) educational and employment based on the wrong caste certificate issued by the competent authorities as ST and which have become final may also be not disturbed accordingly".
(1) Enquiries pending before the various departments, verification Committee, Appellate Authorities, CRE cell and other authorities stands obated or dropped.
(2) Action shall be taken on withdraw the cases filed before any court.
(3) Suspension orders if any in such cases stands revoked.
(4) Pensionary benefits that are with held shall be released.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012
3. The competent authority to issue caste certificate shall independently verify each case before issuing a Certificate and shall not issue a Certificate merely because the father/brother or any relative of the person holds a certificate as belonging to a particular community.
4. The appointments already made in respect of the persons belonging to Pariwara, Talwar, Maleru, Kuruba, Besta and Boil communities who have obtained employment under ST quota (as Nayaka, Maaleru, Kadu Kuruba, Jenu Kuruba, Gond, Rajgond, Kolidhor and Tokrikoli) shall be treated as appointments under GM category w.e.f. the date of this order. They shall not be eligible for any promotion or any other benefits as STs in future. However, they could claim benefits under the respective category of Backward Classes to which they belong as per the existing Government order.
Separate orders shall be issued regarding the manner in which the vacancies lost to STs on account of G.O.s read at (1) & (2) above have to be restored.
Any difficulty in implementing this order shall be referred to Government in the Social Welfare Department."
(emphasis supplied)
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012
11. The notification was in force when the caste verification committee and the dismissal order was passed by the petitioner, in the said circumstances, at no stretch of imagination it can be considered that a 'false certificate' has been obtained by the respondent for employment and dismissing the respondent from the service was justified.
12. The Disciplinary Authority without proper application of mind has passed the order of dismissal, the Tribunal while considering the application under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act has observed and considered the Government order, and held that there is no misconduct on part of the respondent-workman. The endorsement of the Government of India placed reliance by the petitioner reads as under:
"With reference to the subject and reference cited, it is to state that, this office has forwarded a copy of your letter under reference for clarification to the Directorate of Tribal Welfare. Govt. of Karnataka, who have clarified, that the sub-caste 'Naika' does not figure in the list of Scs/STs in the State nor it can
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 be treated on par with "Nayaka", which figures in the ST list."
13. The above notification of Government of India indicates that the sub-caste 'Naika' does not figure in the list of SCs/STs in the State and nor it can be treated on par with 'Nayaka' with figures in the ST list, the said endorsement issued by Government of India at Annexure-A25 placed reliance by the petitioner is not helpful for the petitioner to contend that the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner was justified, as the clarification issued by the Government of India was in regard to the sub-caste 'Naika' which is not anyway connected to the present facts.
14. Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. Workmen4 has held at paragraph No.27 as under:
"27. In Automobile Products of India Ltd. V. Rukmaji Bala, this Court was dealing with a similar 4 AIR 1960 SC 160.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 problem posed by the provisions of Section 22 of Act 48 of 1950, and Section 33 of the Act. Dealing with the effect of these sections this Court held that the object of Section 33 was to protect the workmen against the victimisation by the employer and to ensure the termination of the proceedings in connection with the industrial disputes in a peaceful atmosphere. That being so, all that the tribunal, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 33, is required to do is to grant or withhold the permission, that is to say, either to lift or to maintain the ban. This section does not confer any power on the tribunal to adjudicate upon any other dispute or to impose conditions as a prerequisite for granting the permission asked for by the employer. The same view has been expressed in Lakshimi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. V. Pt. Ram Sarup"
(emphasis supplied)
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference and this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37739 WP No. 30593 of 2012 ii. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25