SRI C SADASHIVAN v. KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS EMPLOYEES' UNION

SRI K C M GOWDA S/O SRI K M CHIKARANGAIAH 2 MAJOR, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR, KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED , PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560 058 R/AT NO.1177/1, 8TH CROSS NELAMAHESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 057 NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003 BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI DEVENDER WADETI MEMBER, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003 BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560 058. ...RESPONDENTS ( By Sri. V S NAIK, ADV. FOR R-1 & R-2, SRI. J. HARIPRASAD, CGC FOR R-3 & R-4 SRI. S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R-5) 3 4 5 This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 29.05.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17555/2006 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and dismiss the said writ petition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and restore the directions dated 11.09.2006 issued by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. 3 This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, K.L.MANJUNATH. J., delivered the following : JUDGMENT The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29th May 2008 in W.P. No. 17555/2006 is called in question in this appeal. The appellant herein was respondent No.4 in the aforesaid writ petition.

The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder : The appellant was working as a Senior Manager under respondent No.5 in this appeal. On 29.01.2004 the 5th respondent issued Article of Charges on the allegations that the appellant was indulging in corrupt practices and failed to discharge his duties properly and had made false statement before the Superiors to get pecuniary benefits. The appellant submitted his reply on 10.02.2004 denying the charges levelled against him. Being not satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on

13.06.2005 holding that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved. The Disciplinary Authority after providing an opportunity of hearing, by its order dated 15.12.2005 removed him from the service. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed on 27.01.2006. 4

The appellant instead of challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in the manner known to law, through an association submitted a representation to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes stating that great injustice has been caused to him. A Member of the National Commission visited the 5th respondent and convened a Meeting with the Officers of the 5th respondent on 11.09.2006 and issued a direction to the 5th respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry and treat the appellant is deemed to have been continued in service and also to settle his salary and allowances.

Aggrieved by the direction issued by the Member of the National Commission, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the direction issued by the Hon'ble Member of the National Commission was illegal. Accordingly, directions issued by him was set aside by allowing the writ petition. This order is called in question in this appeal.

We have heard Sri. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. S.N. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and Mr. V.S. Naik, learned 5 Counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Hariprasad, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Mr. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in entertaining the writ petition of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. He further submits that when the appellant is a Member of Scheduled Castes as he has not been treated properly by the Department when an injustice caused to him on account of his caste, the appellant was entitled to move the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and direction issued by the National Commission was justified because after holding an enquiry the Commission was of the view that an injustice is caused and the complaint lodged by the appellant falls under Article 338 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he requests the Court to set aside the order and dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the Hon'ble Member of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who issued direction to the 5th respondent to redo the enquiry by reinstating the appellant by paying all backwages had no authority and National Commission did not authorise 6 the Hon'ble Member to issue such direction. It is also their case that the Hon'ble Member who issued such directions did not act upon the complaint of the appellant, but he had acted at the instance of an Association and therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the writ petition filed by an Association is not maintainable. They further submit that when the appellant had not challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority before any Court of law, the same has become final. They further submit that challenging the order of the Disciplinary proceedings and the Appellate Authority, the appellant has now filed a separate writ petition before this Court and the same is pending consideration.

The learned Counsel appearing for the National Commission submits that the direction issued by a Member of the National Commission is erroneous and without any authority of law. It is further submitted that the National Commission had not taken any decision to issue such direction to the respondent No.5 and the learned Counsel for the National Commission is supported the case of the writ petitioners.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have to consider the following two points : 7 a) Whether the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was maintainable ? b) Whether the re-opening of the case by the 5th respondent on the direction of a Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes without any authority of law is just and proper ?

It is not in dispute that a similar Trade Union to that of the respondent No.1 had lodged a complaint before the National Commission as if the appellant has been victimised. The National Commission has not conducted any enquiry and did not come to a definite conclusion that there is a victimisation which attracts an enquiry under Article 338 of the Constitution of India. Without doing so and without there being an authority from the National Commission, a Hon'ble Member of the National Commission has issued a direction to the 5th respondent to re-open the entire case. If the direction has been issued by Hon'ble Member of the National Commission based on the representation submitted by another Trade Union, if the respondent No.1 is also a registered Trade Union with majority of the employees and has challenged the direction issued by the Hon'ble Member of the National Commission we cannot find fault with it. Because, if illegal directions 8 are issued by a Hon'ble Member of the Commission is not prevented by a Trade Union which represents the majority of the employees and if the action of the Hon'ble Member of the National Commission would prejudice the interest of the majority of the employees when the 1 st respondent has been established to protect the interest of the employees of the 5th respondent and if the writ petition is filed stating that great injustice is caused on account of issuance of wrong direction by a member of the National Commission, the appellant cannot contend that the writ petition filed by such Association is not maintainable. It is an undisputed fact that a Trade Union would always be in the forefront to fight for the cause of its members and if such action is taken by the 1 st respondent, this Court cannot hold that a writ petition filed by the 1 st respondent is without any authority of law and not maintainable.

So far as the second point is concerned, in view of the categorical statement made by the learned Counsel for the National Commission, we are of the view that if a Hon'ble Member of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has acted exceeding its jurisdiction without any authority of law and without there being any decision taken by the Board, such direction is issued by him has to be set aside. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel 9 appearing for the respondents, that if the appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, it is for him to move the Court for his redressal and he cannot instigate another Trade Union to gave a representation to the National Commission and based on such representation one member cannot take a decision. In the circumstances, we are of the view that point No.2 has to be answered against the appellant.