IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.148 OF 2019 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
K SIDDARAJU S/O LATE. SRI KEMPASIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDENT OF OLD A K COLONY NEAR NTB OFFICE, JANNAPURA BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 301.
(BY SHRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.) AND:
THE GENERAL MANAGER (HRD & A) MYSORE PAPER MILLS LIMITED PAPER TOWN, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 302.
(BY SHRI.RAMACHANDRA .K., ADV. FOR SHRI. M.R.C.RAVI, ADV.) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2018 PASSED IN WP.NO.39618/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT I.A.No.1/2019 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 148 days in filing the appeal.
Sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay of 148 days. Therefore, I.A.No.1/2019 for condonation of delay is allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Taken up for final disposal by consent.
3. The appellant has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 30th July 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge on a writ petition filed by the respondent.
4. The appellant, who was working as a Weigh Bridge Assistant with Mysore Paper Mills Limited was served with a charge sheet. One of the allegations made in the charge sheet against the appellant was that on 28th January 1998, he created a false payment slip to show that one Sri.H.Raju had supplied 9.535 metric tons of Sugar cane in the Vehicle bearing No.KA-14-0643/44 though such vehicle did not come to the Mill on the same day. In fact, this is the main allegation in the charge sheet. After holding an enquiry, the respondent imposed penalty of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal was confirmed in the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. A finding was recorded by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was not fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court allowed the evidence to be adduced for proving the charges. Ultimately, on 30th June 2010, the Labour Court passed an order holding that the appellant is entitled for reinstatement to his original post with continuity of service and 50% backwages. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent was appropriate and there was unwarranted interference by the Labour Court in the said order. In paragraph-14 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held thus:
“14. In view of the facts of the case, the Labour Court should have recorded a finding with regard to the vehicle, that is involved, in view of the specific plea of the respondent-workman that the sugarcane was transported in the vehicle as per Exhibits-W9 and W10, whereas the vehicle that has transported the sugarcane could not have been said to be the same vehicle, since it is only an auto-rickshaw and a tractor.”
5. Earlier, the appeal was adjourned on the ground that there was a possibility of settlement. However, the settlement is not worked out. Hence, we have taken up the appeal for hearing.
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that there was no warrant for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court after appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties.
7. Our attention is invited to paragraph-14 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge to urge that if requisite finding was not recorded by the Labour Court, more appropriate course would have been to remit the matter to the Labour Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference with the order of the Labour Court was necessary. Hence, the appeal be dismissed.
9. We have considered the submissions.
10. The dispute revolves around the charge that the appellant fabricated the false payment slip to show that Sri.H.Raju supplied the sugarcane in the vehicle bearing No.KA-14/0644 though such vehicle did not enter the Mill. As stated earlier, the parties adduced the evidence before the Labour Court. In fact, the respondent examined four witnesses and the appellant examined himself and both the parties produced documents.
11. Perusal of paragraph-12 of the impugned order shows that the learned Single Judge has expressed a doubt that whether the vehicle which was permitted to carry sugarcane did not carry sugarcane at all. In fact in paragraph-14, which we have referred above, the learned Single Judge has observed that there is no finding recorded by the Labour Court in view of the specific plea of the appellant. If that is so, that was not a ground to set aside the order of the Labour Court and to uphold the order of dismissal. In that case, the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the Labour Court. The fact that the Labour Court did not record a finding on relevant issue was no ground to uphold the order of dismissal.
12. Therefore, the appeal must succeed in part.
Hence, we pass the following order:
a) The impugned order dated 30th July 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside;
b) The impugned order dated 30th June 2010 passed by the Labour Court, D.K.Mangalore (Camp at Shimoga) in I.D.A. No.40/2000 is hereby quashed and set aside and the said application bearing I.D.A.No.40/ 2000 is restored to the file of the Labour Court;
c) The Labour Court after considering the evidence, which is already adduced, and after permitting the parties to lead additional evidence, if a case is made out to that effect, shall decide the case afresh by recording appropriate findings;
d) The Labour Court shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible;
e) The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE DM