Karnataka High Court
Sri Babu Mehtre vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd on 4 February, 2013
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
WRIT PETITION NO.4992/2007(L-TER)
BETWEEN
1 SRI BABU MEHTRE
S/O KALLAPPA MEHTRE
AGED 56 YEARS
R/O SIRIJA MANZAL BUILDING
MURUGESHPALYAM
HAL POST, BANGALORE 17
... PETITIONER
(By Sri : V S NAIK, ADV. )
AND :
1 HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD
BANGALORE COMPLEX,
P.B. NO 1785
BANGALORE 17
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri : RAJARAM FOR RSBG LAW FIRM FOR
RESPONDENT )
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO -
QUASH THE ORDER DT. 16.11.2004, AND AWARD DT.
16.10.2006, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. LABOUR
COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.137/1999 THE
CERTIFIED COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED
2
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES H AND J
RESPECTIVELY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO
REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICE IN
HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH FULL BACKWAGES AND
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE ALONG WITH
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF
DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL
REINSTATEMENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the respondent in terminating his services and which has been confirmed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore dt. 16.10.2006 in ID No.137/1999.
3. The facts leading to this Writ Petition are as hereunder:
Pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner to the post of Helper, he was appointed on 16.9.1976 considering him as a Scheduled Tribe (Gond community). He was further promoted to the post of Senior Helper on 1.11.85 and he was confirmed in the said post w.e.f. 27.5.1986. On 15.2.1990 a charge 3 sheet was issued to him stating that he has obtained the appointment by producing a false certificate that he belongs to Kuruba community, not Gond community. The petitioner sent a detailed report on 15.3.1990. The domestic enquiry was concluded on 2.2.1998 holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charge. After hearing him, he was dismissed from the service by order dt.15.3.1990. Aggrieved by the dismissal, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court stating that respondent could not have held an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar and if the employer had entertained any doubt with regard to the genuineness of the certificate it was for the employer to refer the matter to the Caste Verification Committee constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990.
4. The Labour Court has dismissed the dispute upholding the order of dismissal of the Writ Petitioner 4 solely on the ground that the Judgment of the Apex Court in MADURI PATIL AND ANOTHER VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS, has no application to the facts of this case because charge was framed against the employees on 15.2.1990 only. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
5. The short question that arises for consideration of this court in this Writ Petition is:
Whether in view of the Judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court in MADHURI PATIL AND ANOTHER VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS (AIR 1995 SC 94), when a Caste Verification Committee has been constituted under a Special provision, was it open for the respondent/Management to proceed with the enquiry on the premises that charge sheet was issued on 15.2.1990 and therefore Judgment of the Apex Court has no application.5
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that before conducting an enquiry by the Management, the Management has obtained clarification from the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar in regard to the genuineness of the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner. Based on the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and belongs to Kuruba community, enquiry has been conducted. Therefore, this court cannot find fault with the enquiry conducted by the Management. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the Management had secured a report of Deputy Commissioner, the same cannot be a ground for this court to reject the petition because when once a Caste Verification Committee is constituted by the State in terms of the provisions of the Special enactment, even if the charge sheet was issued to the employee, when the matter was pending as on the date of Judgment of the Apex Court in MADHURI PATIL's case, Management was required to refer the matter to the Committee constituted under 6 the Act in order to take action against the employee. The Tribunal without considering the crucial and legal aspect has erroneously rejected the reference. In addition to that, this court in many cases consistently taking view that in such circumstances the matter has to be referred to Caste Verification Committee constituted under the Act and after receipt of the report from the Caste Verification Committee, it is for the Management to take action in accordance with law. Since such a procedure is not followed, the Writ Petition has to be allowed.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The order of dismissal passed by the respondent-Management dt.15.4.1999 is set aside and so also the order of the Labour Court dt.16.10.2006 as per Annexure-J to the Writ Petition in ID NO.137/1999 is also set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondent-Management to refer the matter to the Caste Verification Committee constituted under the Karnataka SC & ST and other Backward 7 Classes (Reservation of Appointment, Etc.,)Act, 1990 and thereafter to take action in accordance with law.
Three months time is granted to the respondent- Management to refer the matter to the Committee. If such mater is referred to the Committee, the Committee shall dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with law by providing opportunity for all the parties as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ak