Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs E Muniswamy on 11 June, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.12330/2009 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
DAVANAGERE DIVISION
DAVANAGERE
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.)
AND:
SRI E. MUNISWAMY
S/O. DODDAHONNURAPPA
ADULT
R/O. C.K. PURA
CHANNAKYAPURI BADAVANE
TEMPLE, KELAGOTE
CHITRADURGA. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.N. HEGDE, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD MADE IN K.I.D. NO.45/04 DATED
3.7.2008 (ANNEXURE-G) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
LABOUR COURT, HUBLI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner-Corporation is before this Court assailing the award dated 03.07.2008 passed in K.I.D No.45/2004 impugned at Annexure-G to the petition.
2. The respondent had applied and was accordingly selected for the post of the 'Driver' in the petitioner-Corporation through the order dated 04.04.1992. At the time of submitting his application, the respondent had produced a Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Master, Government Higher Primary School, Sasalukunte, Pavagada in support of his educational qualification. Subsequently, the petitioner- Corporation alleging that the respondent had produced a bogus Transfer Certificate had issued a show cause notice dated 09.01.2001 and not being satisfied with the reply dated 19.01.2001 had proceeded to hold an enquiry. On the enquiry report being submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has adverted to the same and has passed the dismissal order dated 27.02.2004. The respondent herein claiming to be 3 aggrieved by the same had raised a dispute in K.I.D. No.45/2004. The Labour Court, after considering the matter has arrived at the conclusion that the order of removal dated 27.02.2004 is not justified and had accordingly, set aside the same and directed the petitioner-Management to reinstate the respondent into service as a 'Driver'.
3. While assailing the award passed by the Labour Court, at the first instance, this Court as a interim measure had directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent and extract work and accordingly he has been reinstated and is working, which no doubt is subject to result of this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award would contend that the Labour Court was not justified in its conclusion, more particularly, in a circumstance where the allegation against the respondent was of producing a false Transfer Certificate to obtain employment. It is further contended that the Labour Court was also not justified in arriving 4 at its conclusion that the petitioner-Management has taken a humanitarian view in the case of another employee and therefore, a similar benefit is to be granted to the respondent. It is contended, no specific case has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court and as such, a general observation to that effect would not be justified. In that light, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the award dated 03.07.2008 passed by the Labour Court is not justified and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would seek to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer himself has taken note that a genuine Transfer Certificate was available on record and despite such observation being made, the Disciplinary Authority without adverting to these aspects of the matter has passed the order of dismissal and therefore, the Labour Court was ultimately justified in its conclusion and the award does not call for interference. 5
6. In the light of the rival contentions, I have perused the petition papers. At the outset, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner herein had proceeded against the respondent on the allegation that a false Transfer Certificate was produced to secure the employment and in that light, action had been initiated, the issue ultimately is to take note as to whether in fact a Transfer Certificate to the benefit of the respondent was available at the point when such allegation was made against the respondent and an enquiry was held in that regard. To that extent, a perusal of the consideration as made by the Enquiry Officer and the observation in the report dated 20.10.2001 at Annexure-E to the petition would disclose that, though the Enquiry Officer has adverted to other aspects of the matter and the evidence that was available before him, has also taken into consideration the Transfer Certificate which had been tendered by the respondent before the Enquiry Officer which was issued by the Government Higher Primary School, Siddapura, Pavagada which indicates that the same pertains to the respondent. 6 When such observation had been made by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have taken this aspect into consideration while arriving at its conclusion.
7. In that background, the Labour Court having taken note of the rival contentions and having taken into consideration the original document which was marked at Ex-W3 and was satisfied that the respondent was entitled to the employment when the appropriate document was available had arrived at its conclusion. While doing so, the Labour Court has also taken into consideration the other documents which had been relied on and after referring to the same has arrived at its conclusion.
8. In a circumstance where the Labour Court had relied on the said document at Ex-W3 and had granted the benefit to the respondent, the observation as made in the award holding that a similarly situated employee has been considered on humanitarian ground is in any event wholly unnecessary and the same is 7 without reference to any specific case. Therefore, the observation to that extent would not be justified.
9. Be that as it may, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Labour Court to set aside the order of removal dated 27.02.2004 and granting the benefit of reinstatement in the manner as done without any other benefits in any event does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST