IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.3383/2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN M GANESH S/O MARIYAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, C/O R SHIVARAMU NINGEGODANA THOTA, MANANDAVADI ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
(BY SRI SHEKAR L, ADV.) AND THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C., MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, BANNIMANTAPA ROAD, MYSORE-575201.
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICE, LABOUR COURT, MYSURU IN REF.NO.4/2006 DTD.17.6.2014 VIDE ANNEX-A TO THE W.P ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. L. Shekar and the learned counsel for the respondent Smt.
H.R. Renuka.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with badge No.385 on 08.11.1995 and he was discharging his duties diligently and honestly till 18.11.1997. On which day, the respondent-Corporation denied employment to him and further also filed a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code without there being any cause and refused permission to him to continue the discharge of his duties and that he was assured that if he stands acquitted in the criminal case registered as C.C. No.7939/1998, it would consider his case for reinstatement. That the criminal case ended in acquittal and criminal court by judgment dated 26.06.2002 acquitted the petitioner of all charges and even after the judgment and order of acquittal, the respondent- Corporation failed to reinstate him and hence he raised a dispute. That he approached the Conciliation Officer on 18.04.2004 and as management refused to participate. The Conciliation Officer was forced to report failure to Government which thereafter referred the dispute to Labour Court under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same came to be registered as reference No.04/2006 and the labour court framed the following issues:-
“1. Whether II Party proves that I party had secured job as trainee conductor by producing fake marks cards, Transfer certificate, first aid certificate etc?
2. Whether II party proves that I party had after replying to show cause notice issued to him, had stopped reporting to training on his own?
3. Whether II party proves that I party had unlawfully refused employment to him with effect from 18.11.1997?
4. Whether I Party is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. What Award?”
3. That the respondent-management examined MW-1 and got marked 15 documents. The petitioner examined himself as WW-1 and marked as Ex.W-1 and W-
2. The reference came to be allowed in part and the respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner within one month. Aggrieved, the respondent management approached this court in W.P. No.18914/2013, this court by order dated 04.09.2013 was pleased to set-aside the award of the labour court and further remit the matter for consideration afresh and while so remitting the matter, this court was pleased to observe that the labour court has failed to appreciate the regulation 4(9) of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 (for short ‘KSRTC (C&R) Regulations’) which provides for cancellation of appointment if applicant files a false declaration.
4. That pursuant to the remand the respondent got examined MW-1 and got marked Ex.-M-1 to M-15 and further placed reliance on the KSRTC (C&R) Regulations. It also got marked Ex.M-16(a) and M-16(b). The reference court after hearing the matter on merits by its award dated 17.06.2014 was pleased to reject the reference.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the competent authority i.e. the S.S.L.C. Board which issued the certificate nor the Divisional Security Officer have been examined and without there being a competent witness the labour court erred in accepting the case of the Employer rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is further contended that the labour court failed to see that the documents marked on behalf of the respondent have been strongly denied by the petitioner. That despite the same labour court has been pleased to reject the reference.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as certain irregularities in the records submitted by the petitioner came to the notice of the management, a show cause notice was issued calling upon him to appear for personal hearing. But on receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner stopped attending the office and further more the petitioner was only appointed as a trainee and was not a full time employee. That the show cause notice came to be issued on the report submitted by the concerned department alleging that the petitioner had produced fake marks card at the time of being admitted as a trainee by the respondent. That the management having verified the authenticity of the documents, produced by the petitioner at the time of being admitted as a trainee, the respondent also proceeded further and initiated criminal proceedings which came to be registered as C.C. No.7939/1998.
7. It is further contended by the learned for the respondent that the petitioner has filed an affidavit accepting the terms and conditions of employment. That the S.S.L.C. marks card produced by the petitioner at the time of joining the services were found to be fake and that the Head Master of the Siddhartha Residential High School, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District furnished a certified copy revealing that the petitioner had secured only 210 marks in S.S.L.C. and hence it was concluded that the documents produced by the petitioner was a fake document and that this fact was also reiterated by the Security Officer who gave a report stating that the petitioner had produced a bogus marks card. On receipt of this report, a show cause notice dated 18.11.1997 came to be issued calling upon him to submit his explanation and thereafter a notice of personal hearing was also issued. But the petitioner failed to turn up for the hearing nor did he attend office after being served with the show cause notice.
8. The labour court after taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not stepped into the witness box to lead evidence in support of his claim of refusal of employment has inferred that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his case. The labour court has rejected the contention of the petitioner that the burden of demonstrating certificate are genuine or otherwise, are on the respondent is unsustainable. The labour court has reasoned that the burden of demonstrating the claim was on the petitioner who admittedly has alleged that the respondent has refused employment from 18.11.1997.
9. In the opinion of this court the conclusion drawn by the labour court is legally correct and sustainable. The burden of canvassing the fact is on the person who makes the allegation. It is the claim of the petitioner that the respondent has refused employment. Hence, it was incumbent on the petitioner to demonstrate the case. Having failed to step into the witness box and having failed to demonstrate the said facts of refusal of employment, the labour court was right in rejecting the reference. The fact also remains that the petitioner has not even whispered anything with regard to the contents of the show cause notice under which the petitioner has been put on notice to and called upon to explain the authenticity of the documents produced by him. The respondents have not only alleged that the same is fake but also obtained a copy of the same from the school authorities. This fact is not denied by the petitioner. Further the labour court has also placed reliance on regulation 9 of the KSRTC (C&R) Regulations which enables the respondent-corporation to terminate the services of any person who has given false or wrong information in the application. It states that the person who furnishes wrong and false information would be disqualified for appointment and if the false declaration comes to light at a later stage, the services of the said employee are liable to be terminated. The laobur court has also accepted the case of the employer as proved that the petitioner had stopped attending duties on receipt of the show cause notice i.e. from 18.11.1997. The labour court has also observed that there is no explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay in raising the dispute i.e. after a period of eight years and thereby rendering the claims stale. In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner has not made out any case which would warrant interference with the well reasoned award of the labour court.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE