ASHOK v. NORTH WEST KARNATAKA

[By Sri P Vilas Kumar, Adv] AND: NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI – 580 020 ... RESPONDENT [By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Adv] THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2011 PASSED BY A SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO 7117 OF 2005 AND ORDER FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACKWAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, AND ETC., 2 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Writ appeal by A workman under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 16-6-2011 passed by a learned single judge of this court in WP No 7117 of 2005.

Under the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent- management and set aside the award of the labour court reinstating the appellant-workman into service with 50% back wages, for the reason that the appellant-workman was found involved in an activity amounting to misconduct such as non-issue of tickets even after collecting fare from a group of 42 passengers and therefore in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court the case of UTTARANCHAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs SAN JAY KUMAR NAUTIYAL [2008 (3) SCR 549], the labour could not have set aside the punishment of dismissal from service etc. However, the learned Single Judge while 3 setting aside the award of the labour court, has restored the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is against this order, the present appeal by the workman.

Notice had been issued to the respondent and it is represented by counsel Sri Subhash Mallapur.

The appellant-workman has made an offer that if he were to be reinstated into service, he is prepared to forego not only the back wages but also 17-B benefit during the pendency of the writ petition before this court and the present proceedings. An application under Section 151 CPC is placed before the court by Sri P Vilas Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-workman with the following prayer: Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased that the respondent may be directed to order for the reinstatement of the appellant as prayed for as if there was no break in service with all the consequential benefits and without back wages or 17(B) wages or subsistence allowance from the date of dismissal till the order of learned Single Judge passed in WP No 7117 of 2005 4 dated 16-6-2011, in the interest of justice and law. supported by an affidavit of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the appellant-workman should be reinstated within an outer limit of four weeks from today, the appellant-workman is prepared to abide by the application and the affidavit and will not insist on payment of back wages and 17(B) benefit. He, however, submits that on such reinstatement, the appellant-workman may be granted the benefit of continuity of service.

Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the respondent-management has some reservation with the reinstatement of the workman, who is found guilty of grave misconduct such as pilferage of corporation revenue, is not interest of the corporation and therefore reinstatement should not be ordered without any penal stipulation; that as a deterrent, the appellant-workman 5 should be at least imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment on reinstatement.

In view of the fact that the appellant-workman is keen on joining the services of the corporation and the corporation is not totally averse to this, but insists that it should be subject to the appellant-workman being imposed with a symbolic punishment as a penalty for his misconduct, we set aside both the order of the learned Single Judge and the order of the labour court and direct the respondent-corporation to reinstate the appellant- workman into service as per this judgment, of course, without the benefit of Section 17(B) and back wages, as the reinstatement is only as per this judgment.