Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Medleri I.A. And Another on 22 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: ILR1997KAR3199, 1997(4)KARLJ552
ORDER
1. Writ Petition is taken up with the consent of parties.
2. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for the 2nd respondent.
3. The Management challenges the award passed by the Labour Court dated October 13, 1993, as per Annexure-A. By the said award, the Labour Court allowed the claim statement of the first respondent-workman under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service from the date of removal and it was also ordered that backwages to be paid from the date of removal till his reinstatement.
4. The 1st respondent was working as a conductor with the K.S.R.T.C. He was dismissed from service for an alleged misconduct of not issuing tickets even after collecting fare and he a was dismissed from service on March 28, 1979. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Act. The Labour Court, on a preliminary issue held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and went on to deal with the matter on merits. The Labour Court held that the charge was not proved and granted the relief.
5. Mr. S. V. Jagannath, learned Counsel for the petitioner Corporation strenuously submitted that the dispute itself does not exist since the workman was dismissed from service on March 28, 1979 and the claim petition was filed on October 5, 1988. He further submitted that if any relief this Court deems fit to grant, it can only be from the date of reference.
6. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent Mr. Patil that the past history of 15 cases of default cannot be taken into account since it was not put to the workman during the domestic enquiry. He also submitted that the Labour Court having exercised powers under Section 11A, it cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the award suffers from perversity or some error on the face of the record.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Management and the learned Counsel for the first respondent.
8. I have found in this case and in many other cases that the past history of the workman either deliberately or by negligence has never been put to the workman during the domestic enquiry. This Court has repeatedly held that if the past history is not put to the workman during the domestic enquiry it would not be fair to rely on the past history for the purpose of punishment. The statement of law was again reiterated in B. Nagaraju v. Management of K. S. R. T. C. Banglore Division, Banglore and Another (1993-II-LLJ-527) (Kant).
9. In that view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the Management in all cases to put before the workman, the past history of the workman at the time of the domestic enquiry. The Learned Counsel for the Management is directed to convey the direction of this Court to the Management in view of the law laid down by this Court in B. Nagarajus case (supra).
10. However, in this case since the past history unfortunately has not been put to the workman, it cannot be relied upon.
11. Another strenuous submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the delay cannot be condoned and the relief if any should not be granted. I see some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the 1st respondent shall be reinstated into service and shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits and continuity of service not from the date of removal but from the date of reference viz October 5, 1988. He will also be entitled to 50% of backwages from the date of reference till the date of reinstatement.
13. It is submitted that the 1st respondent has been reinstated into service. Time granted for payment of 50 % backwages as stipulated in the order shall be three months from the date of receipt of this order.
14. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.