Bangalore District Court
Was Charged vs Management Is Not Shown To Have Taken Any ... on 14 February, 2023
THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, AT BENGALURU
DATED 14/02/2023
c/c PRESIDING OFFICER : SRI.HATTIKAL PRABHU S.
M.A., LL.M.,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
REFERENCE NO. 29/2019
BETWEEN
Sri Dondegowda A.B.
S/o. Basavegowda, Age 52 years,
C/o. Nanjegowda, Shanthigrama Post,
Hassan Taluk and District.
FIRST PARTY
(By Sri L. Shekar, Advocate)
AND
The Divisional Controller,
B.M.T.C., South Division,
Central Office, K.H. Road,
Bangalore 560 027.
SECOND PARTY
(By Sri Imran Pasha, Advocate)
AWARD
The appropriate government viz., Karnataka State Government
acting u/s.10(1)(c)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide orders
bearing No. ಕಕಇ/29/ಐಡಎಎ/2019 dated 11/06/2019 referred this
industrial dispute to this court for adjudication after framing the
following points for adjudication.
(1) ಕಕರರಕ ಶಶಶ. ದದದಎದದಶಗಗಡ, ಎ.ಬ, ಬನನ ಬಸವದಶಗಗಡ,
ವಯಸಸಸ52, ಚಕಲಕ, ಬಲದಲ ಸಎಖದಖ:10478, 34 ನದಶ ಘಟಕ,
2
Ref No. 29/2019
ಬದಎಗಳದರಸ, ವಕಸ: ಕದಶರಕಫನ ನಎಜದಶಗಗಡ, ಶಕಎತಗಕಶಮ
ಅಎಚದ, ಹಕಸನ ತಕಲದಲಕಸ ಮತಸತ ಜಲದಲ ಇವರನಸನ
ಆಡಳತವಗರದವರಕದ ವಭಕಗಶಯ ನಯಎತಶಣಕಧಕಕರಗಳಸ,
ಬ.ಎಎ.ಟ.ಸ. ದಕಕಣ ವಭಕಗ, ಕದಶಎದಶ ಕಛದಶರ, ಕದ.ಹದಚನ.ರಸದತ,
ಶಕಎತನಗರ, ಬದಎಗಳದರಸ27, ಇವರಸ ಆದದಶಶ
ಸಎಖದಖ:ಬದಎಮಸಕಸಎ/ದವ/ಗದಗಹಕ/ಕಕ 34/7330/201314,
ದನಕಎಕ:22032014 ರನನಯ ಸದಶವದಯಎದ
ವಜಕಗದದಳಸರಸವವದಸ ಹಕಗದ ದ:03042012 ರಎದ
ಇಲಲಯವರದಗನ ಗದಗರಸಹಕಜರ ಅವಧಯನಸನ ಕತರವಖದ
ಮಶಲಲಲವದಎದಸ ಪರಗಣಸ ಶಕಕ ವಧಸರಸವವದನಸನ ಪಶಶನಸ
ಸಸಮಕರಸ 04 ವರರಗಳ ನಎತರ ಕದಗಗಕರಕಕ ವವಕದ
ಎತತರಸವವದಸ ನಕಖಯಸಮಮತವದಶ?
(2) ನಕಖಯಸಮಮತವಕದಲಲ ಆಡಳತವಗರದವರಕದ ವಭಕಗಶಯ
ನಯಎತಶಣಕಧಕಕರಗಳಸ, ಬ.ಎಎ.ಟ.ಸ. ದಕಕಣ ವಭಕಗ, ಕದಶಎದಶ
ಕಛದಶರ, ಕದ.ಹದಚನ.ರಸದತ, ಶಕಎತನಗರ, ಬದಎಗಳದರಸ27, ಇವರಸ
ಕಕರರಕ ಶಶಶ. ದದದಎದದಶಗಗಡ, ಎ.ಬ, ಬನನ ಬಸವದಶಗಗಡ,
ವಯಸಸಸ52, ಚಕಲಕ, ಬಲದಲ ಸಎಖದಖ:10478, 34 ನದಶ ಘಟಕ,
ಬದಎಗಳದರಸ, ವಕಸ: ಕದಶರಕಫನ ನಎಜದಶಗಗಡ, ಶಕಎತಗಕಶಮ
ಅಎಚದ, ಹಕಸನ ತಕಲದಲಕಸ ಮತಸತ ಜಲದಲ, ಇವರನಸನ ತಮಮ ಆದದಶಶ
ಸಎಖದಖ: ಬದಎಮಸಕಸಎ/ದವ/ಗದಗಹಕ/ಕಕ34/7330/201314,
ದ:22032014 ರನನಯ ಸದಶವದಯಎದ ವಜಕ ಗದದಳಸರಸವವದಸ
ಹಕಗದ ದನಕಎಕ:03042012 ರಎದ ಇಲಲಯವರದಗನ
ಗದಗರಸಹಕಜರ ಅವಧಯನಸನ ಕತರವಖದ ಮಶಲಲಲವದಎದಸ
ಪರಗಣಸ ಶಕದಕ ವಧಸರಸವವದಸ ನಕಖಯಸಮಮತವದಶ
(3) ಹಕಗಲಲದದದಲಲ, ಸದರ ಕಕರರಕರಸ ಯಕವ ಪರಹಕರಕದಕ
ಅರರರಸ?
2) This reference is registered and pursuant to the notice,
both the parties appeared. The first party filed claim statement and
second party filed counter statement.
3) In brief the claim statement averments runs thus:
3(a) The first party was working as driver in the second
party Corporation and his service records are blemishless.
3
Ref No. 29/2019
3(b) The second party issued articles of charge dated
23/05/2012 with allegation of unauthorised absenteeism from
03/04/2012 to till the date of charge sheet. The explanation
submitted by the first party is not accepted by the Disciplinary
Authority. The domestic enquiry was initiated.
3(c) In the domestic enquiry no full and proper
opportunity was given to the first party. The enquiry was
farce.
3(d) After the enquiry report the second show cause
notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The
explanation submitted by the first party was not accepted and
the second party dismissed the first party from the service as
per orders dated 22/03/2014.
3(e) The first party was explained the reasons in his
reply to the articles of charge as well to the show cause notice
explaining the circumstances under which he was forced to
remain absent to the duty. This explanation is not accepted
by the second party. The leave application submitted by the
first party was not considered by the Depot Manager.
3(f) After dismissal the first party became unemployed
and he is facing difficulties in maintaining his family and to
meet the educational expenses of the children. Due to
stigmatic dismissal orders the first party became unemployed
and he could not get any alternate employment.
3(g) The dismissal orders passed against the first party
is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is
4
Ref No. 29/2019
discriminatory one.
With these grounds and other grounds the first party prayed
for setting aside the dismissal orders bearing
No.ಬದಎಮಸಕಸಎ/ದವ/ಗದಗಹಕ/ಕಕ34/7330/201314 dated 22/03/2014 and
also prayed for his reinstatement with continuity of service with full
back wages and consequential benefits.
4) In brief the counter statement averments runs thus:
4(a) It is true that first party was working as Driver in
the second party Corporation.
4(b) The first party was remained absent to his duty
w.e.f. 03/04/2012 and even after issuance of call notice he did
not report to the duty. The articles of charge was issued and
domestic enquiry was held. Based on the enquiry report and
considering the past history the second party dismissed the first
party from the services as per orders dated 22/03/2014. The
second party duly complied section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
4(c) The first party raised this dispute after lapse of four
years and for this reason the claim of first party is not
maintainable.
4(d) The allegation of the first party as to discrimination
and victimization etc., are false.
4(e) As a result of absenteeism of the first party the
5
Ref No. 29/2019
second party put in to hardship and inconvenience and the
public at large also suffered inconvenience.
4(f) The misconduct of absenteeism committed by the
first party is grave in nature and considering the past history
the second party dismissed the first party and this punishment
imposed against the first party is proportionate punishment
against the proved misconduct.
With these grounds the second party corporation prayed for
rejection of claim statement.
5) After considering the pleadings on 01/10/2019 the
following additional issue is framed:
Whether the domestic enquiry held
against the first party is fair and proper?
This issue is treated as preliminary issue.
6) After giving sufficient opportunity also the second party
failed to adduce evidence on preliminary issue. As per orders dated
14/11/2019 this court recorded that domestic enquiry held against
the first party is not fair and proper and answered the preliminary
issue in the Negative.
7) On merits evidence of MW1 and MW2 adduced and
documents ExM1 to ExM28 are got marked on behalf of second
party and closed side. On behalf of first party the evidence of WW1
6
Ref No. 29/2019
adduced and got marked documents ExW1 to ExW7 and closed
side.
8) After considering the arguments submitted from both
sides, after appreciating the evidence and circumstances my findings
on the above point for adjudication are as under:
Point No.1 In the Affirmative
Point No.2 In the Negative
Point No.3 As per final orders
for the following
REASONS
9) Point No.2 for adjudication:The point No.1 is framed
relating to delay in raising industrial dispute. In view of verdicts
given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various decisions, the question of illegality in dismissal
orders is also important factor while deciding the question of delay in
raising the industrial dispute. Hence, I would like to take up point
No.2 for discussion before going to the point No.1 the question on
limitation.
10) Even after giving sufficient opportunity also, the second
party failed to adduce evidence on preliminary issue on fairness of
7
Ref No. 29/2019
domestic enquiry. As per orders dated 14/11/2019 my predecessor
in the office answered preliminary issue in the Negative and held that
domestic enquiry conducted against the first party is not fair and
proper. Hence the burden is on the second party to establish the
alleged misconduct and also to justify the dismissal orders. In order
to justify dismissal orders, on behalf of second party, one Mr.
Shadaksharaiah is examined as MW1 and deposed that he is working
as D.T.O. in the second party Corporation in Central Division and at
the relevant point of time he was working as Depot Manager in the
Depot 34 in second party Corporation. Further he deposed that first
party remained unauthorised absent from 03/04/2012 and for that
he had submitted absent report to the superior officers in the second
party and in turn they issued call notice to the first party. Further he
explained that first party did not join to the duty and it resulted in
conducting domestic enquiry. Further he explained that as a result of
absenteeism on the part of the first party, the scheduled routes are
canceled and the second party sustained loss and also the public
suffered inconvenience.
11) MW1 identified absent report dated 11/04/2012 and the
same is marked as ExM1. This document indicates that the depot
manager reported as to absenteeism of the first party w.e.f.
8
Ref No. 29/2019
03/04/2022. ExM2 is the call notice issued by the Depot Manager
dated 16/04/2012. ExM3 is the call notice issued by the disciplinary
authority. ExM4 is the attendance details, ExM5 is the history
sheet, ExM6 is the report submitted by this MW1 to the disciplinary
authority. These ExM1 to ExM6 documents are marked through
this MW1. In the cross examination, this witness expressed his
ignorance as to service of call notice on the first party. It is
suggested that ExM4attendance details and ExM5history sheet are
created for the purpose of this case. These suggestions are denied as
false by the witness. Further it is suggested that as a result of
illhealth the first party, he could not attend duty and he was
submitted leave application but the same was not considered by
MW1. This suggestion is also denied as false by MW1.
12) One Mr. Shivashankar M. Bhat examined as MW2 and
this witness deposed that he is working as Establishment Supervisor
in the second party corporation and he is also custodian of the
documents, he produced the documents and accordingly he is giving
evidence. Through this witness the enquiry papers are got marked as
ExM7 to ExM28. It is case of the first party that no call notice or
enquiry notice were served on the first party. Issue No.1 regarding
fairness of domestic enquiry is already decided in favour of first party
9
Ref No. 29/2019
as per orders dated 14/11/2019. Hence this aspect does not take
material role in deciding the main controversy. In the cross
examination of this witness also suggestions are posed, as per
suggestions posed to the MW1. This MW2 also denied such
suggestions as false.
13) The first party in order to substantiate his contention, he
himself entered the witness box and examined as WW1. In the chief
examination affidavit he specifically explained that he could not
attend duty due to his illhealth from 03/04/2012 to 29/05/2012.
Further he explained that after recovery from illhealth, he was
approached the second party and requested to take him on duty. But
the second party did not take him on duty under the guise of
pendency of enquiry. The main contention of the WW1 in the chief
examination affidavit is that the charge sheet is issued on
23/05/2012 and thereafter no subsequent charge sheet was issued
and charge sheet is not amended and for this reason there is no
charge against the first party for his absenteeism after 23/05/2012
and for this reason the alleged absenteeism is for the limited period
from 03/04/2012 to 23/05/2012. In order to establish this
particular contention the first party produced ExW4 leave
application dated 04/05/2012 and ExW5 representation dated
10
Ref No. 29/2019
30/05/2012. This document indicates that the first party requested
the second party to take him on duty. This document indicates that
there is a signature. The first party claiming that this signature is
put by the receiving authority. Except small one initial there is no
note or endorsement as to receipt of this representation and there is
no seal of the receiving authority. After considering the arguments
from both sides on this aspect this court come to the clear conclusion
that this document is not sufficient proof to hold that the first party
submitted representation dated 30/05/2012 to the second party and
requested to take him on duty. The first party also produced the
medical documents at ExW1 to ExW3. These documents are not
seriously disputed.
14) The contention of the first party is that the second party
discriminated against him and in order to prove this contention the
first party produced ExW6 and ExW7 minor punishment orders
relating to other employees. After going through ExW6 and ExW7
minor punishment orders, it is also clear that the second party
Corporation imposed minor punishment orders against other
employees against similar misconduct of absenteeism. In this present
case on hand the second party dismissed the first party for the
allegation of misconduct of absenteeism and also considering the past
11
Ref No. 29/2019
history. The history sheet is produced at ExM5. The first party did
not admit the past history. On looking to the ExM5 past history this
court observed that from the year 2005 till 2012 the first party
involved in 18 absenteeism cases. During 20052007 increments
were held up for a particular time. In the year 2017 no punishment
was imposed. During 20072008 relating to five absenteeism cases
only fine was imposed against the first party. In the year 20092010
increment was held up for particular period in the year 2021 fine was
imposed for one absenteeism case. This court observed that no
increment was withheld with cumulative effect relating to earlier
absenteeism of the first party. Further this court observed that the
second party had option to impose minor punishment like
withholding increment with cumulative effect and give opportunity to
first party to continue in service. On looking to the ExW6 and ExW
7 minor punishment orders of other employees, it is crystal clear that
second party discriminated against the first party. After going
through the entire material placed on record, it is clear that the
dismissal of the first party from the service for the misconduct of
absenteeism is shocking to the one's consciousness.
15) Under the circumstances, I would like to reproduce
section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as
12
Ref No. 29/2019
under:
11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and
National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case
of discharge or dismissal of workmen. Where an
industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal
of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in
the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,
is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was
not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of
discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the
workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it
thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman
including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of
discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case
may require:
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case
may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and
shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the
matter.
16) Further I would like to rely on the decision reported in
(2012) 3 SCC 178 (Krushnakant B.Parmar V. Union of India &
Another). In this decision Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
13
Ref No. 29/2019
under :
"Absent from duty without any application or prior
permission may amounts to unauthorised absence, but it
does not always mean wilful"
Further it is held that "when the applicants was charged
for failure of devotion to duty and behaviour unbecoming
of a Government servant on account of his unauthorised
absence from duty and without finding that the absence
was wilful, he was dismissed from service. The order of
dismissal was liable to be set aside".
17) After going through section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 coupled with perusal of the above said decision, it
is crystal clear that it is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction of this court
u/s. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and grant appropriate
relief. With these observations this court come to the clear
conclusion that the impugned dismissal orders dated 22/03/2014 is
not justifiable one. Accordingly I answer point No.2 for adjudication
in the Negative.
18) Point No.1 for adjudication: While referring the
dispute the Government framed point No.1 relating to the delay of
four years in raising the industrial dispute. The learned counsel for
the first party argued that when the dismissal orders proved illegal,
the delay of four years in raising the industrial dispute can be ignored
14
Ref No. 29/2019
to meet the ends of justice.
19) In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the
first party relied on the following decisions:
1. Manu S.E. 3932/2007 [Karan Singh V/s.
Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing
Board] Civil Appeal No.4561 of 2007 (Arising Out
of SLP(C) No.26379 of 2005) decided on
28/09/2007
In this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India at para 9 observed as under:
"The Industrial Tribunal under section 10 gets its
jurisdiction to decide an industrial dispute only
upon a reference by the appropriate Government.
The Industrial Tribunal cannot invalidate the
reference on the ground of delay. If the employer
says that the workman has made a stale claim then
the employer must challenge the reference by way of
writ petition and say that since the claim is belated,
there was no industrial dispute. The Industrial
Tribunal cannot strike down the reference on this
ground. In the present case, the Industrial Tribunal
has held, that the employer has violated Section
25F. If so, the Order of termination is bad in law it
has to be struck down. In the present case, it has
been struck down. However, the Tribunal had
refused to grant any relief on the ground of delay.
The Tribunal has no authority to invalidate the
reference, particularly when it has found that the
Order of termination violates Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
2. 2011ILLJ615(SC) [Kuldeep Singh and G.M.
Instrument Design Development and Facilities
Center and Another] (C.A.No.10231/2010 dated
03/12/2010)
15
Ref No. 29/2019
In this decision Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at
para 21 observed as under:
"If sufficient materials are not put forth for the
enormous delay, it would certainly be fatal.
However, in view of the explanation offered by the
workman, in the case on hand, as stated and
discussed by us in the earlier paragraphs, we do not
think that the delay in the case on hand has been so
culpable as to dis entitle him any relief. We are also
satisfied that in view of the details furnished and the
explanation offered, the workman cannot be blamed
for the delay and he was all along hoping that one
day his grievance would be considered by the
Management or by the state Government."
[In this decision on facts the other workman succeeded
in getting relief and after lapse of 15 years the workman
approached the Government and thereafter the
Government referred the dispute. In this decision it was
held that retrenchment was bad in law.]
3. (1999)6 SCC 82 [Ajaib Singh V/s. Sirhind Co
Operative Marketing Cum Processing Service
Society Limited and another] (Civil Appeal
No.2157 of 1999 decided on 18/04/1999)
In this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para
11 observed as under:
"11. In the instant case, the respondent
management is not shown to have taken any plea
regarding delay as is evident from the issues framed
by the Labour Court. The only plea raised in
defence was that the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference and the
termination of the services of the workman was
justified. Had this plea been raised, the workman
would have been in a position to show the
16
Ref No. 29/2019
circumstances preventing him in approaching the
Court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the court
that such a plea was not sustainable after the
reference was made by the Government. The
learned Judges of the high Court therefore, were not
justified in holding that the workman had not given
any explanation as to why the demand notice had
been issued after a long period."
4. (2014)10 SCC 301 [Raghubir Singh V/s.
General ManagerHaryana Roadways Hissar]
(Civil Appeal No.8434 of 2014 decided on
03/09/2014)
In this decision Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 17
observed that it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial
dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the
matter, since there is no mention of any loss or
unavailability of material evidence due to the delay.
Further at para 20 Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
"Not adjudicating the existing industrial dispute on
merits between the parties referred to it may lead to
disruption of industrial peace and harmony, which
is the foremost important aspect in industrial
jurisprudence as the same would affect the public
interest at large"
5. 2005IIILLJ 522 [Shahaji V/s. Executive
Engineer - PWD] (C.A. No.1699/2005 dated
11/03/2005)
In this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para
4, 5 and 6 held as under:
"4. The case of the appellant was that his services
were terminated with effect from June 1, 1980. The
conciliation proceeding took place much later in the
17
Ref No. 29/2019
year 1996 where after a reference was made to the
Labour Court, Aurangabad under Clause (c) of sub
section(1) of Section 10 read with Section 12 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court
did not entertain the dispute on the ground that
there was delay in making the reference, therefore,
the reference was stale and not tenable under law.
5. The appellant herein assailed the order of the
Labour Court before the high Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, before a single
Judge, who dismissed the writ petition. The letters
patent appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by
the Division Bench by its Judgment and order dated
August 25, 2003.
6. We have heard counsel for the parties and we
have also been taken through the judgments of this
court reported in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind CoOp.
MarketingcumProcessing Society Ltd., AIR 1999
SC 1351:1999(6) SCC 82: 1999ILLJ1260,
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. V/s. K.P. Madhavankutty AIR
2000 SC 839:2000(2)SCC 455:2000ILJ561,
Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board
AIR 2001 SC 2562:2001(6)SCC 222:2001IILLJ
788. Having gone through the judgments we have
no doubt that the judgment of this court in Ajaib
Singh's case lays down the law correctly. In the
instant case there was no ground of delay urged by
the Management. Moreover, even if there was delay
in making the reference to the Labour Court, if it
came to the conclusion that the termination was
illegal, it could have suitably moulded the relief to
be granted to the workman in view of the delay. In
such cases the award of back wages may either be
not permitted, or curtailed. In Nedungadi Bank's
case what was challenged before the High Court was
the order making the reference. That was not a case
where the Labour Court refused to entertain the
dispute on the ground of delay. Having regard to
the clear position in law we are left with no option
but to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment
18
Ref No. 29/2019
and order of the High Court."
6. 2003ILLJ 491 [State of Maharastra and
Sayyedlal Gani Sayyed] (W.P. No. 717/2001 with
WP No.4759/2001 dated 28/08/2002)
In this decision Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at
held that no reference can be rejected solely on the
ground of delay (Para 5)
7. 2002ILLJ 1129 [Haribhau S/o. Gaman
Waghchaure and State of Maharashtra and
another] (ASLPA No.40/2000 in WP
No.3999/1999 dated 07/12/2001)
In this decision Hon'ble Bombay High Court held
as under:
"Delay and laches - Limitation Act does not apply to
proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - If
plea of delay be raised, employer to show real
prejudice caused by delay and not rely on it as mere
hypothetical defence"
Perused the said decisions.
20) In this present case on hand in view of my finding on
point No.1 for adjudication, it is clear that the dismissal orders passed
against the first party is discriminative one and not justifiable one
and consequently the same is illegal. Under these circumstances, in
view of law laid down in the above stated decisions, this court come
to the conclusion that the first party made out good and sufficient
grounds to ignore the delay in raising the industrial dispute and to
grant appropriate relief to meet the ends of justice. With these
19
Ref No. 29/2019
observations, I answer point No.1 for adjudication in the
Affirmative.
21) Point No.3 for adjudication: In view of my finding on
point No.1 and 2, the first party is entitled for the relief of setting
aside the impugned dismissal orders dated 22/03/2014. Coming to
the question of back wages this court observed that, admittedly there
is delay of four years in raising the dispute. Admittedly first party
was remained absent to the duty from 03/04/2012 to till date of
dismissal. The first party failed to establish the contention that he
had submitted leave application. The first party failed to establish his
contention that he had submitted representation dated 30/05/2012
(ExW5) requesting to take him on duty. Under these circumstances
this court come to the clear conclusion that the first party is not
entitled for back wages. In view of facts and circumstances of the
case on hand this court come to the conclusion that it is just and
proper to direct the second party to reinstate the first party with
continuity of service and consequential benefits. With these
observations, as an answer to point No.3 for adjudication, I proceed
to pass the following:
20
Ref No. 29/2019
ORDER
The claim statement filed by the first party u/s. 10(1)(c)&(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is hereby partly allowed.
The dismissal orders passed by the second party Corporation bearing No.ಬದಎಮಸಕಸಎ/ದವ/ಗದಗಹಕ/ಕಕ 34/7330/201314, dated 22032014 is hereby set aside.
The second party Corporation is directed to reinstate the first party with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
The first party not entitled for back wages. No orders as to costs.
Send copy of this Award to the Government for publication.
The Government shall publish the award in such manner as it thinks fit within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the same.
The award shall become enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication 21 Ref No. 29/2019 Under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act 1947.
The Government shall intimate the publication of award to all the parties to the case by registered post acknowledgement due, without fail.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerized by him, corrected and then signed by me on this the 14th day of February, 2023) (HATTIKAL PRABHU S.) c/c PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU 22 Ref No. 29/2019 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR II PARTY ON DE: NIL DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR II PARTY ON DE: NIL WITNESS EXAMINED FOR I PARTY ON DE: NIL DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR I PARTY ON DE: NIL WITNESS EXAMINED FOR I PARTY ON MAIN:
WW1 Sri Dondegowda DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR I PARTY ON MAIN:
ExW1 ExW1 Medical prescription ExW2 Medical prescription ExW3 Medical certificate ExW4 Representation by first party dated 04/05/2012 ExW5 Representation by first party dated 30/05/2012 ExW6 Certified copy of Minor Punishment orders ExW7 Certified copy of Minor Punishment Orders WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR II PARTY ON MAIN:
MW1 Sri Shadaksharaiah MW2 Sri Shivashankar N. Bhat
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR II PARTY ON MAIN:
ExM1 Absence Report dtd: 11.04.2012. ExM2 Call notice dtd: 16.4.2012. ExM3 Call notice dtd: 23.05.2012 ExM4 Attendance Report dtd: 3.4.2012.
23
Ref No. 29/2019
ExM5 History Sheet
ExM6 Depot Manager Report dtd: 07.05.2012.
ExM7 Articles of charge
ExM8 Notice dtd: 23.05.2012.
ExM9 Order dated 21.07.2012 appointing Enquiry Officer.
ExM10 Enquiry Notice dated 21.07.2012.
ExM11 Un served postal Cover.
ExM11(a) Relevant portion marked ExM12 Order of paper Draft dtd: 30.07.2012.
ExM13 Paper Publication.
ExM14 Enquiry Notice dtd: 08.08.2012
ExM15 Enquiry Notice dtd: 24.08.2012
ExM16 Enquiry Notice dtd: 05.09.2012
ExM17 Enquiry Notice dtd: 02.07.2013
ExM18 Enquiry Notice dtd: 10.09.2019
ExM19 Un served Postal Cover.
ExM20 Enquiry Notice dtd: 21.11.2013.
ExM21 Order sheet.
ExM22 Preliminary Issue. Deposition.
ExM23 Enquiry findings.
ExM24 Show cause notice dtd 10.12.2013.
ExM25 Un served postal cover.
ExM26 Security Report dtd 18.02.2014.
ExM27 Dismissal Order dtd: 22.03.2014.
ExM28 I Party Letter dtd: 03.04.2014.
c/c PRESIDING OFFICER,
III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU 24 Ref No. 29/2019 14/02/2023 I Party by Sri LS II Party by Sri SRA Reserved for Award Award Passed.
Send copy of the award for publication to the Government.
(HATTIKAL PRABHU S.) PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU