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.2805/2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, NOW REPRESENTED BY IT’S CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV.) AND SRI T CHANDRAPPA S/O SRI. THANGIDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, C/O MR. NARAYANARAO, ISDMT MARKET, BANGALORE ROAD, CHINTHAMANI, KOLAR DIST.-563125.
(BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.9.2014 PASSED BY THE IInd ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF. NO. 10/2013 VIDE ANN-D ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Petition is listed for consideration of I.A. 1/2019 preferred by the respondent for disposal of the writ petition in view of the fact that the respondent-workman has already retired from service and is depending on the retirement benefits for his survival and though the petition is listed for consideration of I.A., on the request of the learned counsel for the respondent and with the consent of both the counsels, the petition is taken up for disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner-Corporation is that the respondent was appointed as a driver in the Corporation in 1988 and that from June 2010 the respondent stopped attending to his duties and he did not return to duty despite call letters and article of charges. The petitioner appointed an Enquiry Officer and notice of enquiry was affixed on the door of the workman and a publication was also taken out in Kannada Prabha, a local Kannada daily news paper. Despite the same, the workman-respondent failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and ex-party proceedings were held and report was submitted. Thereafter, based on the report the Corporation issued a notice to the respondent and that the respondent failed to reply to the same also. Thereafter, the petitioner- Corporation on the basis of the enquiry report passed the order of dismissal. Assailing the same, the respondent approached the Labour Court and the same came to be registered as Ref. No.10 of 2013. The Labour Court framed the following two issues:-
“1. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, PÀ.gÁ.gÀ.¸Á. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ, EªÀgÀÄ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀgÁ¸Á/1a§«/¹§âA¢/UÉʺÁ/786/10/2542/2011 ¢: 20-10-2011 gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ²æà ©.ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà, ©£ï vÀAVqÀ¥Àà, 53 ªÀµÀð, PÉÃgÁ¥sï JA.£ÁgÁAiÀÄtgÁªï, LJ¸ïrJAn, ªÀiÁPÉðmï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, aAvÁªÀÄtÂ, ©¯Éè ¸ÀASÉå: 1483, PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹., UËj©zÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ WÀlPÀ, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĸÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ?
2. ºÁV®è¢zÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ CºÀðgÁUÀÄvÁÛgÉ?”
4. The workman has been subjected to cross- examination and nothing has been elicited to demonstrate that he was in receipt of the notice. The Labour Court taking note of the previous long service of more than 21 years of blemishless service rendered by the respondent and also taking note of the fact that the respondent was the recipient of an award and also the nature of the punishment imposed in similar circumstances by the petitioner-Corporation under Ex.Ws.1 and 2 concluded that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the impropriety/misconduct alleged against the respondent- workman.
5. The Labour Court has also reasoned that the Corporation has not placed on record any material to demonstrate any past misconduct and hence the Labour Court concluded that this being the first misconduct after long service of more than two decades the punishment meted out was disproportionate. In this background the Labour Court was pleased to partly allow the dispute and further was pleased to modify the punishment of dismissal to one of reinstatement without back wages and was further pleased to reduce two annual increments permanently.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the award of the Labour Court is erroneous and cannot be sustained. He would contend that the absence of one year four months is unpardonable. The said submission though merits consideration cannot justify the punishment imposed.
7. Though dismissal order was served none of the other communications or show cause notices or enquiry notices have been served on the respondent though sent to the same address. It is the case of the petitioner that notices have been served by way of affixture and the paper publication. It is really strange that when the petitioner was able to serve a notice of the order of dismissal then it ought to have been possible for the petitioner-Corporation to serve the notice of the proceedings.
8. That apart this court has perused Annexure-A, B and C. Annexure-A is the Article of Charges, Annexure-B is the Enquiry Report and Annexure-C is the Disciplinary Authority’s Order. None of the documents make any reference to the residential address of the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent is identified by his badge number. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the alleged instance of absenteeism a lone instance and that the same was preceded by more than two decades of blemishless service to the Corporation though the Corporation has failed to appreciate the same, the Labour Court was right in appreciating the said fact.
9. It is further contended that after the award the respondent has once again rendered serve without any cause for concern or worry and that now he has superannuated on reaching the age of retirement.
10. In the opinion of this court the emphasis laid on the long service rendered by the respondent merits consideration. Neither is it the case of the petitioner nor is any material placed before the court to contend that the respondent is a chronic defaulter/offender. The respondent prior to the alleged instance has never indulged in any misdemeanors. Keeping in view the long services prior to the period of absence and post the reinstatement, the conduct of the worker has been above-board. He has put in virtually 30 years of service and a single act of indiscipline or misconduct ought not to be ground for dismissal more so, keeping in view the nature of allegation.
11. In that view of the matter this court is of the opinion that the finding of the Labour Court that the punishment imposed is disproportionate is prima-facie correct. In the opinion of the court the modified punishment awarded by the Labour Court is slightly on the lower side keeping in view the length of absence of one year four months. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed. The punishment imposed by the Labour Court relating to denial of back wages is not interfered with in so far as it relates to reduction in two annual increments permanently this court keeping in view the fact that the respondent has already retired, deems it appropriate to modify the punishment to one of reduction of three annual increments.
Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A. 1/2019 for disposal does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE