IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.839 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
Y. NOVAS SON OF L. YESUDAS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NOHA'S ARK NEW COLONY, IRUDAYAPALAYAM, ROBERTSONPET, KOLAR GOLD FIELD-573 122.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.D. KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.48006 OF 2012 DATED 05.02.2016.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.48006 of 2012, ordering reinstatement along with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, the respondent therein has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent-workman was absent for almost 2 years. Thereafter, notice was issued and another year has since elapsed. There is nothing on record to show as to how the respondent-workman is entitled for continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. Therefore, he pleads that the appeal be allowed by setting-aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. The said contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. He pleads that in view of the long service rendered by the respondent- workman, continuity of service and consequential benefits was justified and hence, no interference is called for.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for.
5. It is an admitted fact that the respondent- workman was absent for two years, which was an unexplained absence. Even after issuance of notice, the enquiry commenced after one year. In view of the said fact, the learned Single Judge interfered with the award of the Labour court holding that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, keeping in mind 20 years of blemishless service rendered by the respondent-workman. We find no error in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, which is based on the facts of the case.
6. However, so far as continuity of service and all consequential benefits is concerned, we are of the view that interference is called for. Uncalled for leniency has been shown to the respondent, for being absent for such a long period of time, without informing the employer, which would not entitle him for all consequential benefits.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent of directing reinstatement of the respondent- workman is upheld. The rest of the order granting continuity of service and all consequential benefits is set-aside. The appellant is directed to reinstate the respondent-workman subject to his appearance before the appellant, within a period of three months from today.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/- CT:SM