IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4619 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
BHOOTHARAJAIAH S/O. P.C.SRIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. PATTANAYAKANAHALLI, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 21.07.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN ID.NO.75/2013(ANNEX-M) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The Management of KSRTC has filed this writ petition for laying a challenge to the judgment & award dated 21.07.2014, a copy whereof is at Annexure-M, whereby the learned Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru, having favoured the dispute in ID No.75/2013 has directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service without any service benefits.
2. Though the respondent-workman duly served with the Court notice, in his wisdom he has chosen to remain unrepresented.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that relief needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
(a) the respondent workman in his cross-examination dated 10.07.2014 has specifically given the following admission:
“7. £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAavÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ £À£ÀUÉ »A§gÀºÀ PÉÆnÖvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. »A§gÀºÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥ÀjPÁëyð £ËPÀjAiÀÄ°è EzÁÝUÀ £À£Àß PÉ®¸À ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£ÀPÀgÀªÁV®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 3 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ® «¸ÀÛj¹vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄðzÀÝ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ¨ÁQ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw £ËPÀgÀ£ÁVAiÉÄà EzÉÝ£ÀÄ. PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÉUÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ wAUÀ½£À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ ZÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ PÉÆnÖzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.”
b) once the domestic enquiry was held to be just reasonable and proper, the Labour Court could not have accepted the Medical evidence at Exs.DW1 to DW5 except for the proof of victimization, which said Certificates do not vouch; the Labour Court wrongly holds that these exhibits were not challenged by the management at all when para 8 of the cross-examination as under reveals the contrary:
“8. PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV §¸ÀÄìUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉZÀÄÑ ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. ¤qÀ§Æèå-1 jAzÀ 5£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÄAavÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. F zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀgÉ vÉUÉ¢gÀĪÀ £À£Àß PÉ®¸À ¥ÀÄ£À: ¹UÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ¸Àȶֹ vÀA¢zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî.”
(c ) there is yet another reason why the subject documents produced by the workman could not have been taken cognizance of the DW5 which is a medical certificate purportedly issued by the Chief Medical Officer Government Hospital, Sira does not bear the signature of jurisdictional Medical Officer; the other medical certificates i.e., DW2-DW4 do not relate to the period during which the petitioner was absent on the ground of ill-health; the medical certificate at Annexure D-5 contains the interpolations which have not been explained by the respondent-workman in his evidence; therefore, much milk could not have been drawn from this evidentiary material by the Labour Court to the advantage of the workman.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; the impugned award is quashed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS