Bill Forge Private Limited vs Mr R Kanakaraju on 2 August, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bill Forge Private Limited vs Mr R Kanakaraju on 2 August, 2012

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

                        1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

    DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                    PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
                        AND
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO

        WRIT APPEAL NO.16598/2011(L-TER)

BETWEEN

1   BILL FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED
    # 9C, BOMMASANDRA,
    INDUSTRIAL AREA,
    BANGALORE - 560 099
    REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER- HR
    MR K. CHANDRASHEKAR        ... APPELLANT

(By Sri : S SANTHOSH NARAYAN, ADV. )

AND :

    MR R KANAKARAJU
    AGE: MAJOR,S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
    "OJASIWITHA NILAYA"
    KITHIGANAHALLI , HENAGARA ROAD,
    BOMMASANDRA POST,
    ANEKAL TALUK,
    BANGALORE-99           ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri : K B NARAYANASWAMY, ADV. )

    THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.18126/2010(L-TER) DATED 20/09/2011.
                                2


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, SURI APPA RAO J, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the order dt.20th September 2011 in W.P. 18126/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge modified the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and directed the respondent to pay the twice the cost of the value of the lost bearings.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent was an employee of the petitioner establishment. In the year 2006, he was placed incharge as Stores Assistant and he was incharge of the material issued from the Stores. During the stock verification, it is found that two pairs of bearings found shortage. For the shortage of the 2 pairs of bearings, the appellant - establishment initiated enquiry against the respondent. Articles of charges were framed. Enquiry was held on 6.11.2006. After enquiry, the appellant passed the 3 order of penalty by dismissing the respondent from service. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellant - authority, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court in ID 25/2007 u/s 10 (4-A) of the I.D.Act. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after recording the evidence adduced by both the parties passed the order dt.12.10.2009 holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and further observed on appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, the appellants have failed to prove that the respondent has committed theft of two set of bearings. The Labour Court therefore of the view that on account of some negligence on the part of the respondent he has lost 2 pairs of bearings. In the circumstances felt that the penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, the Labour Court while exercising discretion u/s 11(A) of I.D. Act modified the dismissal into one of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect and recovery of an amount equal to the value of the lost bearings. 4

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Management filed the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also was of the opinion that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent committed theft of bearings and modified the order passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent to pay the twice the cost of value of the bearings in place of only paying the cost of the bearings. The Management filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of the theft of the bearings, the respondent is responsible for the negligence. Therefore, the Management has rightly awarded punishment of dismissal from service and that the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge are not justified in modifying the punishment imposed by the Management.

4. Admittedly, after considering the evidence produced by the Management as well as the respondent, the Labour Court was of the view that the appellant --Management failed to prove that the respondent has committed theft of the two bearings. Missing of the bearings was only on account of some negligence on the part of the respondent. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court modified the order passed by the Management into one of with holding increment with cumulative effect.

5. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Single Judge also felt that the appellant - Management has failed to prove the theft of two bearings and that the respondent was responsible for missing of those bearings. However, the respondent was directed by the learned Single Judge to pay twice the cost of value of the lost bearings. Admittedly, there was no previous misconduct on the part of the respondent while discharging duty as Store Keeper or any other duty 6 entrusted to him. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge are justified in modifying the order passed by the Management.

6. Therefore, we are of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE Ak

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court