Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs P. Mahadeva on 1 December, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
- THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1S? DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN RE DY. WRIT PETITION No. 30609 oF 2011. -- -- BETWEEN: BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TR/ ANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, >. SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-56902" BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR... NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER .. PETITIONER (BY SRI. L GOVINDRAJ, ADV}. . AND P. MAHADEVA, MAa (OR _ ASSISTANT ARTISAN" ne BADGE NO/2241, 19TH DEPOT. BMTC, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE ESPOUSED THROUGH GENERAL SECRETARY A.LT.U.C. BANGALORE- BRANCH BANGALCRE- 560020 .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LARS -HMAN RAO, ADV.) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF _ DT 27.11.10 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUT MADE BY THE _ INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE VIDE ANN-J. jo ' NO ' THIS W.P. IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER
Petitioner-Corporation imposed the punishment of ~ reduction of the basic pay of the respondent, an. Asst. Artison, by 3 annual inerements by order ; dt. 18/8/2006, having found "him guilty. of "acts of misconduct. That order, when referred for adjudication to the Industria! | Tribunal, Bangalore, registered as I.D.No. 31/08, parties baving'filed their pleadings and let in- evidence; both _orab..and documentary, the Industrial Tribunal, by award dt, 27/11/2010, held not proved, the allegations of humiliation and insult by use Of abusive : = language against Javalingappa and
- . kicking his right foot with a chappal on 18/12/2004, while the aliegation of disobedience to the instructions 7 - issued: by his official superiors on 14/12/2004, was "proved, and accordingly interfered with the punishment os : to modify it to reduction in basic pay by one annual CDN increment with cumulative effect. Hence this petition by the employer.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the. parties, examined the award irnpugned, undoubtedly :
Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction. to. interfere :
with the punishmetn imposed by the order i irs sapugned in the light of Sec.11-A_ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, investing a jurisdiction in the 'Labour Court to interfere with the' punts hrnent of 5 distnissal or discharge, only, as held by the Apex Cx C ourt 'ins SOUTH INDIAN CASHEW F. ACTORY' S Workers Union Vs. KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CorPoRATION Lip.
- 3. ; The findiny recorded by the Industrial Tribunal | cover , the. misconduct committed on 18/12/2004 of insult, humibation and use of abusive language against ~ Javalingappa, as well as kicking him with chappal, ~ when not proved, while the other charge of disobedience
--
7 (2006) 5 SCC 201 MK é of the instructions of official superiors on 14/12/ 2004, proved, the order of punishment calls for interference.
In my opinion, ends of justice would be met by reducings_ the punishment to one of reduction of the basie pay of | - the respondent by one incremental » stage. with - cumulative effect.
In the result, this 'petition i& allowed in part. The award impugned is modified accordingly. S Sd/-
JUDGE Rd/-