Writ Petition No. 11296 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 11296 OF 2015 (L-TER) BETWEEN: ANTHONY DAS @ HARRY, S/O HARRY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT MAKKANDOOR VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT. PIN-571201. (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION, KPTCL, KAVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - PIN-575001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O & M DIVISION, MESCOM, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT. PIN-571201. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
of the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to look into the evidence led before it. 8. Learned counsel would contend that in paragraph 21 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has only - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 considered the implication of Regulation 14 and in paragraph 22, it has only considered the audit report, which is produced by the respondent, which was the basis for initiating the enquiry. It is his contention that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner to disprove the audit report produced by the respondent is not considered by the Labour Court at all and the said approach of the Labour Court in fact is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that pursuant to the remand the Labour Court has allowed the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claim and has recorded the evidence and after analyzing the evidence led by the parties, has come to the conclusion that misappropriation is duly established. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 10. Learned counsel would refer to paragraph 22 of the judgment and would contend that Exs.M7, M9, M14 and M17 have been considered by the Labour Court and has rightly held that misappropriation is established. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the documentary evidence produced by the respondent/Management is more than sufficient to hold that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 13. There is no dispute that earlier, the Labour Court has set aside the penalty imposed by the employer and said order was called in question by the employer. This
Arguments
(BY SMT SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI S N VENKATARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.28.7.2014 IN I.D.R.5/2007 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KODAGU AT MADIKERI VIDE ANNX- A.QUASH THE ORDER DT.19.1.2002 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-B. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the award dated 28.07.2014 in terms of which, the Labour Court, Kodagu at Madikeri in ID No.5/2007 has dismissed the reference. 2. Petitioner/employee has challenged the penalty of dismissal of service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The facts narrated in the petition would reveal that petitioner joined service under first respondent in the year 1979 as a Junior Assistant. In the year 1999, he was transferred to Suntikoppa Branch, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu. On 03.11.2001, show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner alleging misappropriation of funds. 3. Petitioner on 08.11.2001, submitted his reply. The respondent/Management was not satisfied with the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 reply and initiated Disciplinary Enquiry. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. Initially, the petitioner was dismissed invoking Regulation 14 of the KEB Employees' (Classification Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987. 4. The employee approached the Labour Court challenging the said order of dismissal. The Labour Court set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to hold enquiry in accordance with law. 5. The respondent/employer approached this Court challenging the order of the Labour Court. Writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter enquiry was commenced. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and led evidence, so also the respondent. The Labour Court on appreciation of materials on record, has held that charges against the petitioner is established and penalty imposed by the employer is confirmed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the direction issued by this Court, on the previous occasion, wherein the matter is remitted to the Labour Court to record fresh evidence and to pass considered order, the Labour Court after having recorded the evidence has not considered the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner. The Labour Court has reiterated the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority by referring to Regulation 14. It is his contention that though Regulation 14 enables the employer to take appropriate action and impose penalty of dismissal in appropriate cases. In view
Decision
Court has remanded the writ petition filed by the employer to the Labour Court with a direction to record evidence of both the parties and to pass appropriate orders. Admittedly, evidence is led by both the parties. The impugned award would indicate that the petitioner has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 produced documents in support of his claim. The respondent/Management has also produced documents in support of its claim. 14. On considering the impugned award, it is evident that the Labour Court has primarily come to the conclusion that under Regulation 14, the respondent/Management has the power to impose the penalty of dismissal in appropriate cases and to hold that the decision is valid, it has referred to certain documents relied upon by the respondent/Management. However, what is readily noticed is that there is no reference or discussion on the documents produced by the petitioner. Since the Labour Court is also required to look into the documents produced by the petitioner and to consider its consequence on the final outcome, it is necessary to set aside the impugned award and remit the matter to the Labour Court, with a direction to consider the effect of the documents produced by the petitioner and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 15. Hence the following :- ORDER a. Writ Petition is allowed. b. The impugned award dated 28.07.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Kodagu at Madikeri, in I.D.R.No.5/2007, is set aside. c. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court in I.D.R.No.5/2007 on the file of Labour Court, Kodagu at Madikeri. d. The Labour Court shall bestow its attention to the documents produced by the petitioner as well as respondent/Management and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders. e. It is made clear that parties are not at liberty to lead any further evidence. f. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3668 WP No. 11296 of 2015 g. All contentions are kept open. The excise shall be completed preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. h. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 17.02.2025 without any further notice. i. Registry to send back the records to the Labour Court forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:VN