IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.5195 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
K SRIKANTA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKABIDARE, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214 (BY SRI.M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572 101.
(BY SMT.SHWETHA ANAND, ADVOCATE) ---
...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11/7/17 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.25117/17.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard.
2. Appellant was working as a Driver with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. He remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of 2 ½ months. After holding a departmental enquiry, he was terminated from service.
3. The Prl. District Judge, Tumakuru, dismissed the claim statement filed by the workman under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and upheld dismissal order dated 01.04.2015. The said order was challenged by the workman in W.P.25117/2017.
4. The solitary contention urged before the Hon’ble Single Judge was that a preliminary issue was not framed with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry.
5. The Hon’ble Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by holding that the Labour Court has indeed framed the said issue along with one other issue and answered the same in the affirmative. The Hon’ble Single Judge having adverted to the materials on record has recorded that there is no illegality in the procedure nor it has caused any prejudice.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged a solitary ground that the procedure followed by the Labour Court is not correct.
7. Learned Advocate for the respondent pointed out that the petitioner has admitted before the Labour Court that on earlier occasions also he was given memo for unauthorised absence.
8. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the records.
9. Except contending that the Labour Court ought to have framed the issue regarding fairness in domestic enquiry as ‘preliminary issue’ learned advocate for the appellant has not demonstrated any illegality in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE BSR