Karnataka High Court
Sri Sp Ramachandra vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 22 September, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO.2297/2009(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
1 SRI SP RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC EX-BADLI CONDUCTOR
R/O AMBEDKAR ROAD,
SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri : S.RAJESH FOR S B MUKKANNAPPA &
ASSOCIATES, ADV. FOR APPELLANT )
AND :
1 KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.RAOD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALOER 27.
2 DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, BANGALORE CENTRAL DVN.,
SUBHASH NAGAR, BANGALORE 9.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt : NILAFER AKBAR FOR SRI. N K RAMESH,
ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS )
2
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.16008/2005 DATED 02/06/2009.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.NO.16008/05 dt.2nd June 2009 is called in question in this appeal.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:
The appellant was working a Badli conductor since 4.6.1993. He remained absent unauthorisedly from 12.8.1996 for nearly 2 ½ years. An enquiry was conducted against the appellant. In the enquiry his misconduct was proved. Therefore, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 31.3.1999. After the dismissal, the appellant made a request to accept the medical certificate which was not permitted by the respondent. 3 Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court having accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the order of punishment was harsh. Therefore, he was directed to reinstate into service. The said order was questioned by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition.
4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Labour Court did not exercise the discretion vested in it properly and when no reasons were assigned by the appellant for his unauthorised absence for more than 2 ½ years, as he was working as a Badli conductor, no mercy can be shown to such employee. Accordingly, he reversed the findings of the Labour court by allowing the Writ Petition. This order is called in question in this appeal.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we do not see any merits in this appeal because on perusal of the order of the Labour court, no where the appellant has stated the reasons for his unauthorised absence for more than 2 ½ years. According to him, 4 he was unwell. But unfortunately, no material was placed before the court below to show what was the nature of illness he was suffering. The period of treatment taken by him or atleast the Doctor's certificate to show that he was unable to attend the work. In the absence of proper evidence, the Labour Court without considering the facts of the case solely on the ground that in one of the case lenient view was taken by the respondent - Corporation, has allowed the dispute stating that the respondent is required to take the same view in the present case also. We are unable to accept the reasonings of the Labour court as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge because if some leniency shown in some other matter, we cannot consider the same as a ground to approve the conduct of the appellant who has remained absent for more than 2 ½ years unauthorisedly without any valid reasons. Badli conductor is always appointed by the respondent to see that his services are readily available as and when the regular conductors are not available for service for various reasons. If a Badli 5 conductor has remained un-authorisedly absent for 2 ½ years, no court can direct the respondent to reinstate him into service.
6. In the result, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak