Karnataka High Court
Sri Fakeerayyaswamy Sangayya ... vs The Management Of Bmtc on 20 July, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.18657 OF 2009(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI FAKEERAYYASWAMY SANGAYYA
BELLATTIMATH,
S/O SANGAIAH BELLATTIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1227, 11TH MAIN,
5TH CROSS, PRAKASHNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 021. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.K.VIJAYALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF BMTC
CENTRAL OFFICES,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
2
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE 3RD ADDITIONAL
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, PERTAINING INTO
ANNEXURE-J. QUASH THE AWARD DATED 5.3.2009
PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT,
BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.126 OF 2003, THE CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-J ETC.,
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-workman applied for the post of 'Conductor' with the respondent-Management, in the year 1992, claiming reservation under 'Group-D Category' namely, 'Economically Weaker Section'. He produced all the necessary documents along with an Income Certificate, stating his annual income as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Thereafter, the petitioner-workman was asked to produce Certificate in Form No.3, with regard to his income. Consequently, the petitioner was appointed as a 'Conductor' in the respondent-Management and was kept under probation.
3
2. An article of charge was issued to the petitioner that his income is beyond the limit of Rs.10,000/- per annum and hence he would not be eligible for reservation under 'Group-D Category'. Thereafter, charges were framed and an enquiry was held. Charges were held to be proved and he was removed from the service. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court. By the impugned order, Labour Court dismissed the said petition. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Smt.K.Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set-aside. That the Certificate relied on by the respondent-Corporation, in terms of Annexure-D cannot be accepted.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Management disputes the same. She contends that the Tahasildar has issued the said certificate, indicating that his father on retirement is earning an 4 income of more than Rs.10,000/- per month. It is a Certificate issued by an Appropriate Authority. Therefore, based on the said Certificate the appointment was annulled.
5. On hearing learned counsels, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The Certificate issued in terms of Annexure-D, clearly indicates that the annual income of the father of the petitioner-workman is more than Rs.10,000/- per annum. The monetary limit to claim a job under 'Group-D Category' namely, 'Economically Weaker Section' is Rs.10,000/- per annum of the family. If the annual income is more than Rs.10,000/-, he cannot seek an employment under 'Group-D Category'. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, the order of the Labour Court is just and proper. The petitioner-workman has been rightly dismissed from service. Hence, no interference is called for.
5
6. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Rule discharged.
SD/-
JUDGE JJ