Writ Petition No. 45881 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 45881 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: B M GANESH, S/O. LATE. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. BYAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI POST AND HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST - 560049. (BY SRI M C BASAVARJU, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 7.10.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.61/2015 AT ANNEX-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 ORAL ORDER
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner/Corporation is assailing the award dated 07.10.2017 in I.D.No.61/2015 passed by III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. In terms of award, the claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short 'the Act') is allowed-in-part. 3. The order of dismissal passed by the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner/Corporation is directed to reinstate the present respondent to his original post within 30 days from the date of receipt of publication of the award and as a consequential benefit, 30% back wages is awarded. The order of dismissal is substituted by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effective. 4. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on nine occasions earlier to the present disciplinary enquiry, which is now under discussion. It is further submitted that on all nine earlier occasions, he was subjected to disciplinary enquiry for unauthorized absence. On all occasions, the charges were held to be proved and minor penalty was imposed. 6. Thereafter, during the pendency of disciplinary enquiry for his unauthorized absence from 03.02.2014 to 20.08.2014 i.e., for more than 6 months, the respondent tried to justify his absence on the ground that he was not keeping well. In support of his contention, he has produced certain medical certificates and the Labour Court placed reliance on the said documents and has concluded that on account of illness, the respondent remained absent and for this reason, has taken a lenient view exercising power under Section 11A of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the documents produced by the respondent/employee in support of his alleged illness could not have been relied upon by the Labour - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 Court as those documents, even if referred to would not indicate that the respondent suffered from illness, justifying his absence from 03.02.2014 to 20.08.2014. It is also her contention that when the proceeding was going on, the respondent unauthorizedly remained absent from 10.01.2015 to 09.04.2015. It is further stated that from 29.05.2015 till the date of the order of dismissal i.e., 02.12.2015, he remained absent. 8. Learned counsel referring to the documents marked at Exs.W1 to W8 would contend that even those certificates, which are relied upon by the Labour Court would not justify the unauthorized absence from 03.02.2014 to 20.08.2014. Referring to Exs.W1 to W4, it is contended that the said documents itself would reveal that he is fit to resume duty on 20.08.2014 and referring to Ex.W5, it is contended that the said document would reveal that petitioner was fit to resume duty from 13.02.2014 and Ex.W6 would indicate that respondent/employee obtained the said certificate on 18.02.2014 and the said document is not supported by any document establishing illness of the respondent, and even Exs.W7 and W8 are also clinical reports and do not reflect any ailment. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 9. Thus, it is urged that the Labour Court erred in referring to medical certificates to hold that the respondent was absent on account of medical reasons. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also point out to the fact that this Court had directed the respondent to resume work pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court and the petitioner/Corporation pursuant to the order passed by this Court vide letter dated 19.02.2019 had asked the respondent to resume the work. However, respondent has not resumed the work so far. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the Labour Court is justified in substituting the punishment invoking Section 11A of the Act. It is his contention that unauthorized absence is justified as the respondent was unable to attend the duty on account of his illness. It is also his contention that despite this Court passed an order directing the petitioner to allow the respondent to resume the work, pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent could not resume the work as he was not assured the light duty on account - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 of his ailment. He further submits that he has given a representation to assign light duty and the same is not yet considered by the respondent/Corporation. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 13. From the materials placed on record, there is no difficulty in holding that the petitioner was absent from 03.02.2014 to 20.08.2014. It is also not in dispute that he has faced nine disciplinary enquiries prior to the present one and all those disciplinary enquiries are initiated on account of unauthorized absence ranging from 7 days to 250 days and the minor penalties were imposed on the respondent/employee. It is noticed from the medical records produced by the respondent/employee that he tried to justify his absence stating medical reasons. 14. However, the very medical records would indicate that the Doctors who has issued the said certificates have indicated that the respondent/employee is fit to resume the work on a particular date and even on that date or thereafter the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 15. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent moved an application seeking leave on account of medical reasons and his application seeking leave on account of medical reasons was not considered by the petitioner/Corporation. On the other hand, he remained unauthorizedly absent for long period and the alleged illness is not established. 16. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court could not have set aside the order of dismissal by substituting minor punishment in terms of the impugned order. 17. It is noticed that this Court has directed reinstatement pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court and petitioner/Corporation has also issued a letter requesting the respondent to resume the work. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent now submits that the respondent is unable to attend the work as a Driver on account of his ailment and disability. Nothing is placed on record to hold that the respondent at present is unable to discharge his duty as a Driver. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4064 WP No. 45881 of 2018 19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view, that the Labour Court committed an error in setting aside the penalty of dismissal. 20. Hence the following :-
Decision
ORDER a. Writ petition is allowed. b. The award dated 07.10.2017 passed by III Additional Labout Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.61/2015, is set aside, c. The punishment of dismissal of respondent imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 02.12.2015, is upheld. d. The respondent is entitled to terminal benefits as applicable under the Rules and the same shall be released, if not released, within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, it shall carry 6% interest from today. NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:VN Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE