P T Bhagyalakshmi W/O Bhanu A vs The Management Of Brr (India) Limited on 1 June, 2010

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

P T Bhagyalakshmi W/O Bhanu A vs The Management Of Brr (India) Limited on 1 June, 2010

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

 (By Sn  ADV FOR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 15'? DAY OF JUNE 2020  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  4- _

WRIT PETITION NO.20763:/.2005  4'  } D A--2 T

BETWEEN:

PTBHAGYALAKSHMIW/O BHANU.A _
AGED ABOUT 37 YRS,    
R/AT N().383, ' A.  -
Tm BLOCK, (WEST), _  
JAYANAGAR,    I
BANGALORE 560.082. ' '  -  I
_   = 3  , 1-  PETITIONER
(By Sri : D LEEIAKR1S_HNAN_;' V)  .

AND

.........j....

1. THE'MANAOEMENT--OF-ERR (INDIA) LIMITED
NO. 12;  ROAD';-
EANGADORE560 052';

.. E3EP.'BY ITS DIRECTOR.

  '  .1yIURTI«IY ASSOCIATES, ADV I

. . . RESPONDENT

D' .._4"DTI4I1.S"Ii--;«::if*IT'2ON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & A 227 OF THE' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH 'THE ORDER DT.25.I0.2004 {ANN--F) PASSED BY THE ' ..jC'PR§*38£DING OFFICER DAEOUR COSRT, BANGALORE IN _ I--N'DUSTR1AL DISPUTE ACT NO. 1 10/2000, UPHOLDING THE ' VALIDITY OF THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY

-TIIE RESPONDENT.

"M TI-KS PETITION COIVKNG ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORSER This writ petition is filed irnpugning tI1e"av9a;d""dated it "~ 3.5.2005 passed in ID.No.110/20Od'».:on.:th.e5 ﬁtiehiof 9 Labour Court Bangalore.

2. Brief facts:

The petitioner hereinfthe of respondent on 3.1.1987 continued to serve under the 1.4. 1999. During the ivasﬁeinvdttleeserarices of respondent she had taken iéﬁejrreni 1.3.1998 to 31.8.1998 and after coniirighackdvdshe'Aconﬁnued to work in the respondent V. A as des_ign"engineerV at their project of construction of ﬂy--over 11ear__Si.rsi.e circle, Bangaiore South. While she was so by an order of even date she was

--e transferred the project office of the respondent company Kat theirVVNarmada Project in Gujarath State. The petitioner .' accept the transfer and reported to the duty at the O V ' "transferred piace.

"W1

3. Instead, she unauthorisedly remained absent from duty. Thereafter, she also sent a legal notice on questioning the legality of the transfer order passed _ respondent. Inspite of reminders, the hrespondent», not .4 report to duty at the transferred place+'...(;.harge .1. .9 issued on 1.6.8.1999 intimati:ig..,_the petitioner"

charges leveiled against her and by appointing an enquiry was duly served on petitioner,...she--.VdidA» explanation.

But, she    to the
respondent    from the enquiry

proceedings. A it "

4. Th'e.,_enq_uiiyaoilicergsafter conducting exparte enquiry subrnitted his Vllreport on 10.11.1999 to the respondent. Thereafter, ashow cause notice was issued by the 9respondent'v_v.on91.29..11.1999 for which reply was given by the V . petitioner 'on; 11.12.1999 denying the ﬁnding given by the _Eenqt.uryVV'ol'I1cer and requesting the respondent to drop the report and to permit her to serve in the registered ofﬁce soft the respondent at Bangalore. Thereafter, the petitioner W1 was dismissed from services of respondent by an order of dismissal dated 17.7.2000.

5. The said order of dismissal was challenged' petitioner under Section 2~A of the Industﬂa1..-Qisputes r/w Section 10--4A of the Industrial :Disp1ites'Act_befor Labour court in ID.No.}10/2000., In«Vihe"-saiduproceedings','~ V the respondent entered appearance, hcounterl statement. Thereafter ev;i;dence_"AWas i're_corded. Avflterxhearing the counsel for both the conﬁrmed the order of dis'1':s;;ps}ésai by dismissing the petitioner servicesi 0

6. ilhe liorderl of the labour court is irnpngriedt by.' the"petit§.oner in this writ petition on the "Vfoll.o§2"vin§'0grounds. W"'[«hat the enquiry conducted by the

- not fair and proper. The conduct of the respondevnt rﬁiiltransferring the petitioner to Narmada site 00""-__b"prqjectu -is: illegal, irregular, capracious, rnalaﬁde without A of law and contrary to the standing orders of the _.re§spondent company. The said transfer amounts to "*1 victimising her for availing maternity leave and extending the same thereafter. That she was not given st1_ﬁicient_ opportunity to explain the reason for not being _ the services at the transferred place atgﬁarmadaﬁitei. he The enquiry conducted on '- .' insubordination or disobedience atzseiice without leavei is not fair and proper.

7. In this proceedings is duly served was secured.

The the only grievance of the «ti"r"r1e* appointing her to the services:'on"V._appointed with an assurance that she wotild not be irailsierred to any place and would be ,_veonti:rluedV' in the "'1'egistered oﬁice at Bangalore. Since she availed 'V leave for the period from 1.3.1998 initiaﬂy thereafter extended the same up to 31.8.1998. the respondent management by vindictive manner has A frrargsferred her from Bangalore to Narmada Site Project at ' though there is scope for respondent to retain her " Bangalore Office. It is further contended. that the W1 standing order, which governs her employment. in respondent company, is silent about the transfer. _"

absence of the same the respondent couidprifot _ transferred the petitioner from Bangalore Site if Project at Gujarath. In support of relied upon the following decisions rendered court and other High Courts WhiCfi"'af€ as

4) $1"

(2000) 3 sec 224 -- Mﬁm;cipaiv:'1'corgﬁaacn. of Delhi ----vs-

Female Workers_(Muster..Ro*ll) and Another;


(1979) 1    "--'--vs':-- Coir Board and
Another. V      '

(19791 Page 4----M.f;L.Nagara}a ---vs-- State of Karnataka --

1995 suppip (11 Teak Chand Magatrarn Obhan -- vs-- Kamala Prasad Sh'ul§i;a and Others. ii LLJxf186V -- A.L.Kalra & Project and Equipment p VC'0rpofati"0n of India Ltd., :1"_(_)1 -- Anil Kumar ----vs-- Presiding Officer & g(5t.~11e;:'s.

.'V7) Am 41064' so 506 (V 60 c 475) -- SBM --vs-- V.K;Ma;nchegowda ' 1573 SC 2650 -~ Western India Match Co Ltd., --vs-- Workmen.

"""\

9) ILR 1999 KAR 3258 --- Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd «vs-

Geep Industrial Syndicate En:1pi.Union & Others.

10) FLR 1969 (NCC) 132 (399) -- Workmen of _ Cement Works Ltd., -vs-- ACC Ltd., X 11} 1984 (1) sec 1 «« Glaxo Laboratories"'{*I}.:'_i,tds *--_vs:r v Presiding Oﬂﬁcer, Labour Court, Meerut__ S I

8. The aforesaid judgments Sreliied the petitioner in support of her contpentionpp petition mainly deal with the _ Wotr1en'»».er11pgloyee; not to be transferred during shouid not be for to be given in enquiry be without bias; the report on proper reason; reiying upon with Standing Order of company; _:ratio' enunciated in the aforesaid judgments no direct bearing on the issue that arise for consideratienithis proceedings. In the instant case what is chaiienged' iiisiithe correctness of the award passed by the 1abour_hC.ourt in upholding the validity of the domestic enqiiiry and consequentiy, dismissing the petitioner from the services of the respondent. Hence, the aforesaid decisions ._ ' 'WI would not be of any assistance to the petitioner to seek for quashing of the award passed by the labour F consequently for an order directing respondent_.:éorr1pany_fte__ _ reinstate her to the post of design;engineerinrespontierltlé company.

9. On the other hand for' the respondent sought to on the ground that the appointrnent 12.1996. itself is clear regarding --teI'rr1S Clause 8 of the said appointrnxerntgilorder that' the petitioner is liable for respondent to any place in India,' The 'ia.a:sg.__accepted the same by aﬁixing her signaturelto Therefore, it is not open to her to con't"end__gthat the're_was an assurance from respondent that _gwi1l"~lbeyV'ﬁ"retained in Bangalore and would not be trar1sferre'd",:--. it is further contended that the conduct of j inxinsisting that she should not be transferred out 2 ., efﬁangalore and refusing to accept the transfer contrary to terms of the appointment order, amounts to Wdisobedience and willful insubordination. Further her ""1 absence from duty without leave is an act subversive of I discipline attracting provisions of Standing Orders, hence the dismissal of petitioner is fully justified. contention of the respondent is supported by p the Apex Court in the matter of Cipla Liniited Jaya' " C Kumar R & Another. reported in of the said case squarely app.ly_to facts of"V-the' present case. This Court is in agreerrlent llaforesaid contention of the resp:oriden_th. -jristifgiirrg the "order of dismissal passed against "the--.,light 'o'f"foregoing discussion, this Court 'passed by the labour Court in §D.No.11O/C2000 does, suffer from any illegality or '~ call..fo.ri1nterference of this Court. Therefore, the" ~..aWard:'«v_passed in ID.No.110/2000 is conﬁrmed. Coneeqaer£t1y;p'tI=the writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner is disrhissed Without any order as to costs. Sd/W JUDGE Natl'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court