Karnataka High Court
Sri L Victor Norman vs The Bangalore Club on 29 August, 2018
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.18071 OF 2011 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.L.VICTOR NORMAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.196, 14TH CROSS
ARAVINDANAGAR
LINGARAJAPURAM
THOMAS TOWN
BENGALURU-560 084 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE BANGALORE CLUB
NO.10, FIELD MARSHAL
K.M.CARIAPPA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY SECRETARY ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BENGALURU IN
I.D.NO.195/2006 (OLD NO.23/2004) AND TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 30.12.2010 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BENGALURU IN
2
I.D.NO.195/2006 (OLD NO.23/2004) VIDE ANNEXURE-F
TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
****
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that he joined the respondent-Club as a Clerk in 1982. On certain acts misconduct, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Thereafter, an article of charge was issued. He submitted his reply denying the charges. Being dissatisfied with the same, an enquiry was held. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report, dismissed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, he raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. By the impugned order, the petition was rejected. Hence, this petition.
2. Sri. S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is erroneous. That there is no evidence to indicate that the petitioner 3 was involved in the charges levelled against the petitioner. That the Respondent-Management have failed to prove the charges against the petitioner. That the evidence led-in by the Management is insufficient and it is a case of victimization. Hence, he pleads that the writ petition be allowed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent disputes the said submission. He contends that substantial evidence has been led-in to prove the guilt of the petitioner. That the Management witnesses have clearly narrated what the petitioner has stated. That he has abused the Officers and threatened them. He has used abusive language against his superiors. The specific language used was also part and parcel of the charge- sheet. There is not even a denial by him with regard to the same. Hence, he pleads that the Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. That the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the petition.
4
4. On hearing learned counsels, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
5. The charges levelled against the petitioner is regarding his conduct. That he has indulged in threatening, intimidation, tampering and damaging of official records using abusive language against his superior. The Enquiry Officer considered the entire material placed before him. The primary contention of the petitioner's counsel is that there is no evidence to prove the charges levelled against petitioner. That the respondent failed to prove the charges. However, the evidence led-in by the Management witnesses clearly proves the charge against the petitioner. There was specific mention in the charge-sheet about the abusive words used by the petitioner on his superiors, which the petitioner has not denied.
6. The charge-sheet against the petitioner was one of willful subordination or disobedience, habitual breach of law applicable to the establishment, riotous and disorderly behaviour by the petitioner. By such a conduct, the petitioner had indulged in threatening, intimidation, 5 tampering and damaging of official records using abusive language against his superior.
7. In order to prove its case, the respondent- Management examined MWs.1 and 2. MW.2 has stated that when the incident took place, he had noticed that the petitioner was in a very angry mood but he did not exactly hear the words uttered by him.
8. So far as MW.1 is concerned, he has narrated the incident in detail. While narrating, he has indicated that earlier Tiruvakkanarasu had come there with a leave letter. The witness asked him to produce a certificate from ESI. Thereafter, the petitioner as well as the employer came there where the incident took place. The petitioner started abusing him. He used various abusive words which were found in the evidence. To this evidence, there is absolutely no cross-examination made by the petitioner. There is no denial that he has used abusive language. There is not even a single suggestion made to the witness that he has not used any abusive language. Therefore, the evidence of the witness that the petitioner has used 6 abusive language has gone uncontested. Not only is there absence of cross-examination, there is even no specific denial of the same.
9. In reply to the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a general denial made by him, that should be considered. I'am unable to accept such an interpretation. The denial of the charge should be specific. There cannot be a general denial especially when such charges are levelled against him.
10. So far as the evidence is concerned, there is no statement made by the petitioner denying the fact that he has used abusive words against his superior. In fact, what he states in his examination-in-chief has nothing to do with the charges levelled against him. He has narrated with reference to the leave letter in the last para that MW.1 started murmuring something and used abusive language against the petitioner. He told him that he has created false statement and given a complaint against the petitioner. This does not amount to any specific or general 7 denial by the petitioner. When the charge is that he used abusive language, there has to be a denial. Apparently, neither in his reply to the charges, his evidence nor in the cross-examination of the Management witnesses, is there any denial of the same. Under these circumstances, the Enquiry Officer was justified in accepting the evidence. He is also justified in holding that the Management has proved the charges against the petitioner.
11. Under these circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Labour Court which calls interference. The findings recorded are based on the material evidence led-in. Hence, nothing else would survive for consideration. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
SD/-
JUDGE LB