Karnataka High Court
A Lakshmipathy vs The Chief Manager (Traffic) on 16 March, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
W.P. NO.17811/2010 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
A.LAKSHMIPATHY,
S/O S. ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT KAVADIGARA STREET,
1ST BLOCK, MADHUGIRI,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHIEF MANAGER (TRAFFIC),
K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES,
K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN
I.D.NO.57/2005 DTD 05.01.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE B TO
THIS WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS,
BACK WAGES AND WITH HOLDING OF 6 ANNUAL
INCREMENTS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT IS CONCERNED.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed praying to quash award passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in I.D. No.56/2005 dated 05.01.2010 (Annexure-B), wherein the Labour Court has allowed the dispute in ID No.56/2005 in part and directed the II Party/Management to reinstate the I party into service, and substituted the dismissal order with penalty of withholding six annual increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment and restricted the claim of the I Party for entitlement of continuity of service only for the purpose of claiming pensionary/retirement benefits and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc.
2. The briefs facts of the case are that, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a driver by the respondent-KSRTC on 13.10.1988. The petitioner was transferred from Davangere Division to Mysore Division 3 (Urban) on 16.12.2002. The Respondent-KSRTC has issued Articles of Charge to the petitioner alleging violation of order of transfer as well as unauthorized absence against the petitioner on 19.07.2003. The petitioner was dismissed from the service of the respondent-KSRTC on 21.05.2005. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner raised a dispute before the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in Industrial Dispute No. 57/2005 under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act., wherein after service of notice, the Respondent-KSRTC filed statement of objections and on their behalf they have examined one witness as MW.1 and marked 22 documents and the petitioner was examined himself as WW.1 and marked 12 documents on his behalf. After hearing the parties on both sides, on 08.02.2008 initially the Labour Court has held that the II Party/Management of KSRTC is not able to prove that the domestic enquiry held against the I party was fair and proper, and finally vide order dated 05.01.2010 after the evidence and hearing, the labour 4 court has allowed ID No.57/2005 in part and set aside the dismissal order dated 25.01.2005, as noted above.
3. The I party/workman aggrieved by the said order, has filed this petition praying to quash the order passed by the Labour Court and also sought for a direction to the II Party/Management to grant continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, including backwages and restore six annual increments which has been withheld by the order of Labour court, since such punishment imposed by the II Party/Management is so harsh.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition.
6. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the Respondent-KSRTC has justified the order passed by the II party/management which is modified by the Labour Court submitting that, many times the I party/employee 5 has applied leave and whenever he remained absent unauthorisedly and when the memos are issued, he has not given proper explanation to the memos with proper supporting documents. When he was relieved from the duty and transferred to Mysore Division, he had to go and report for the duty at Mysuru Division and he was no more the official of Davangere Division. The manner in which the employee has acted and the fact that he never tried to report for duty at Mysore Division and on the other hand sought to be continued in Davangere Division goes to show that, only with an intention of avoiding the work at Mysuru he had come up with a ground of ill-health; but, instead of reporting for duty, he has filed this petition and he has sent a reply that he would report for the duty after the writ petition filed before the court is disposed of. Learned counsel further submits that, when once the misconduct is proved, the next question that arises for consideration is, whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the proved misconduct or whether it is a fit case to interfere under Section 11-A of the ID Act. Admittedly from 15.07.2002 6 till the dismissal date ie., 25.01.2005 for a period of nearly 2½ years, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent without justification. The attitude of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and she seeks for dismissal of the petitioner.
7. Having heard the learned counsel and on going through the records I find that, after the order passed by the Labour Court directing the Respondent- KSRTC to reinstate the Petitioner into service, even after receipt of the order of reinstatement from the Department, the petitioner has not reported for duty and no justifiable reasons are assigned for not reporting for duty and his stand is not established by producing any evidence. At least, he should have obeyed the order of the Authority. Such an attitude of the petitioner is not acceptable. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in this petition.
7
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC undertakes to file Memo of Appearance on behalf of the Respondent-KSRTC. She is permitted to file Memo of Appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*