Karnataka High Court
Balaji S/O Gundaji vs The Managing Director And Anr on 19 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8613
WP No. 201468 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 201468 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
BALAJI S/O GUNDAJI.
AGED: 36 YEARS,
OCC:NIL,
(EX-DRIVER NO. 1957 NEKRTC BHALKI)
R/O SHIVAPUR COLONY, BIDAR.
TQ AND DIST: BIDAR - 585 326.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAIRAJ K BUKKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
RENUKA 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Location: HIGH NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SARIGE SADANA,
KALABURAGI - 585 104.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC BIDAR DIVISION OFFICER,
AT OLD BUS STAND, BIDAR.
TQ DIST BIDAR - 585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DEEPAK V BARAD, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8613
WP No. 201468 of 2022
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) CALL FOR THE
RECORDS B) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AND
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AT BIDAR IN KID NO.
10(4)(A)/6/2019 (OLD KID NO 1/2019) DATED 18.09.2021
VIDE ANNEXURE -D, C) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
NEKT/EST/ABST/BDR/110/2017/2447/2018-19 DATED
27.10.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE - C, D) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE
MANDAMUS OR ANY DIRECTION TO RESPONDENTS NO 1 AND
2 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER ON DUTY AT WITH
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS WITH FULL BACK WAGES. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Petitioner was initially appointed as a trainee Driver cum Conductor by respondent-Corporation. Being aggrieved by order of dismissal passed by respondent No.2, a petition was filed under Section 10(4)(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8613 WP No. 201468 of 2022
2. Labour Court citing various judgments rendered by this Court has proceeded to dismiss the petition on premises that petitioner being appointed as a trainee driver cum conductor, does not fall within the definition of workman. Consequently, claim petition is dismissed.
3. Heard counsel appear for petitioner and counsel for respondent-corporation.
4. Records reveal that petitioner who was appointed as a trainee driver cum conductor was attached to Bhalki depot. Alleging that he remained unauthorizedly absent, petitioner was subjected to domestic enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer noting petitioner's absence proceeded ex-parte, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, indicating charges leveled against petitioner are substantiated. Therefore, appointing authority removed petitioner from service, as per C and R regulations.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8613 WP No. 201468 of 2022
5. The Labour Court, while addressing the issue of whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper, answered the issue in the negative, holding that the enquiry was not conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice. However, despite this finding, the Labour Court proceeded to dismiss the petition filed under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dismissal was solely based on the ground that the petitioner, being a trainee employee, did not qualify as a "workman" under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, could not invoke its protections or remedies. This conclusion formed the crux of the Labour Court's decision, despite the substantive questions regarding the fairness of the enquiry.
6. The finding of the Labour Court, however, is contrary to the well-settled legal position laid down by this Court in the reported judgment of Basanagouda vs. The Divisional Controller (W.P. No.100878/2017 and connected -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8613 WP No. 201468 of 2022 matters). In the said judgment, this Court held that even trainee employees, under certain conditions, could be treated as workmen if their roles, responsibilities, and engagements met the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court's reliance on the petitioner's trainee status as the basis to deny jurisdiction under the ID Act is, therefore, inconsistent with the precedent set by this Court.
7. It is evident from the facts on record that the petitioner was subjected to a domestic enquiry by the respondent corporation. The very act of subjecting the petitioner to such an enquiry, followed by a decision to dismiss him from service, unequivocally indicates that the petitioner was engaged in duties and responsibilities akin to that of a workman. This sequence of events strongly suggests that the petitioner was appointed and deputed as a trainee driver-cum-conductor, with responsibilities indistinguishable from those of a regular employee. The -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8613 WP No. 201468 of 2022 Labour Court's findings to the contrary are thus not supported by the record. Furthermore, in the objections filed by the respondent corporation before the Labour Court, the petitioner's status as a workman was not expressly disputed. Instead, the corporation sought to justify its actions based on alleged misconduct, as evident from paragraphs 5 and 6 of its objections.
8. The Labour Court, having concluded that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, was duty-bound to call upon the respondent corporation to lead fresh evidence to substantiate the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. This procedural obligation stems from the principle that once an enquiry is found to be unfair, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the alleged misconduct afresh before the adjudicatory authority. By failing to follow this procedure and instead dismissing the petition on the erroneous ground that the petitioner did not qualify as a workman, the Labour Court has acted in contravention of established legal principles. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8613 WP No. 201468 of 2022
9. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the Labour Court's conclusion that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act is erroneous and contrary to both the facts of the case and the law laid down by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Labour Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for further proceedings, directing it to provide the respondent corporation an opportunity to lead fresh evidence in support of its case and to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law.
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. Matter is remitted back to Labour Court for fresh enquiry, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31