SRI RUSHABENDRA NEELAIKANTAPPA ARKACHARI v. NORTH WEST IKARNATAIKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI

(By SRI. RAVI V HOSAMANI, ADVI THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GIVE BACKWAGES TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL NOW. IN WRIT PETITION No. 4438/2006: BETWEEN NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. PETITIONER (By SRI. RAVI V HOSAMANI, ADV.) AND RUSHABENDRA NEELAKANTAPPA ARKACHARI S/O NEELAKANTAPPA ARCHARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A SHIDAGANAL BUILDING, CHOWDESHWARI BADAWANE, 2ND CROSS, MEDLERI ROAD, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT. (By SRI. GODE NAGARAJ, ADV.) RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IN KID NO.27/2005 DATED 30.09.2005 ORDER MADE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, THES WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER W.P,No. 10965/2006 is filed by the workman calling in question the award dated 3O09.2005 in KID No. 27/2005 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, in so far as, it relates to denial of back wages, while, W.P.No.4438/2006 is filed by the public road transport corporation, the employer calling in question the same award directing reinstatement and all other consequential benefits. Hence petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by this common Order.

While it is the claim of the workman that when the charge of unauthorized absence was not proved before the Labour Court, entitled him to full back wages, reinstatement and continuity of service, it is the plea of the Management/employer that the counsel by name Vijaykumar S. Bolmal when engaged, having died, statement of objections was not filed and proceeding before the Labour Court was concluded ex-parte.

There is considerable force in the submission of Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Counsel Corporation that the cause for not filing the statement of objections and not adducing evidence was the death yAL 4 of counsel engaged by the Corporation before the Labour Court. On that sole ground, is needless to state that the award impugned calls for interference.

In result, W.P.No.4438/2006 is allowed. Award dated 30.09.2005 in KID No.27/2005 of Labour Court, Hubli is quashed and proceeding remitted consideration afresh extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, permitting the Corporation statement objections evidence, documentary and the workman to lead additional evidence, if any, and thereafter to pass an award strictly in accordance with law. W.P. No.10965/ 2006 filed by the workman is dismissed.

Since the parties are represented by learned Counsel, they are directed to be present before the Labour Court, Hubli, on 04,07.2012, without further notice. 5

As the workman is said to be reinstated on

27.09.2006, pursuant to an interim order of this Court, the Corporation is directed to continue him in service until disposal of the dispute before the Labour Court. sd/a JUDGE