IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.48381/2012 (L-TER) BETWEEN M/S MINERVA MILLS (UNIT OF NTC) MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-560 023 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER (H.R) MR. NARAYANAPPA (BY SRI N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADV.) AND MR. ANANDA THEERTHA S/O LATE H RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1194, 22ND A CROSS 23RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 070 (BY SRI VINAYAKA V S, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 2.12.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT IN REF. NO.77/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. Petitioner-employer (presently closed down) is before this Court being aggrieved by the award dated 02.12.2011 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru, in Reference No.77/2005.
3. The misconduct alleged against the workman is that he had withdrawn the wages of one Maruti and that he had proceeded to show as unpaid the wages in respect of Maruti while the said Maruti was employed in NTC and that he had manipulated the attendance register by altering the attendance particulars and had recorded false attendance. Pursuant to the charge sheet dated 07.03.1998, enquiry came to be conducted and an order of dismissal came to be passed on 29.12.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached the Labour Court- cum-Conciliation Officer.
4. The Labour Court found that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper. That after appreciating the material on record, the Labour Court has recorded that the management has not adduced any evidence on either of the issues and no evidence has been let in on behalf of the petitioner-employer. The Labour Court taking note of the fact of filing of Serial Application No.94/2000 under Section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, has observed that pending disposal of the serial application preferred under Section 33(2)(B), the impugned order of dismissal could never be construed as an order of dismissal.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the serial application came to be disposed off on 13.01.2005 on the premise that the respondent was not the concerned worker in respect of whom the management is required to take leave of the Court. The Labour Court taking note of the evidence of the workman with regard to victimization and in the absence of cross-examination or any other independent evidence being let in, has been pleased to hold that the allegation of victimization appears to be substantiated as the very charge is by the management that the workman was habitually misbehaving with the officers and despite warnings he had not mended his ways.
6. The Labour Court taking note of the fact that the respondent was not the concerned workman and also taking note of the fact that the allegation leveled against the respondent was first of its kind, has proceeded to hold that the punishment meted out is highly disproportionate to the charge leveled against the respondent. It has further observed that the first party who lost his livelihood between 1998 and 2011 has suffered both mentally and financially and hence, the order of punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. That apart, the Labour Court has merely granted compensation without going into the aspect of reinstatement, etc.
7. Apart from the reasons set out by the Labour Court, this Court has no hesitation in subscribing to the view in view of the fact that in respect of serious charge of misappropriation and fabrication of documents, not even an elementary step of lodging an FIR or criminal case has been taken by the petitioner. The other striking aspect is that there has been no forensic evaluation of the materials said to be have been fabricated. The allegation as set out in the charge sheet is that the respondent-workman has tampered and manipulated the records like the wage slip, attendance register, etc., in order to facilitate the act of misappropriation. Both the charges of misappropriation apart from being a misconduct and the charge of fabrication of document are serious offences under the penal code and it is also apparent that there are no eye-witnesses to the act and that the presumption is drawn on the basis of the contention taken by the petitioner that records were in the custody of the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioner that it has obtained any expert opinion who subscribed the view that the respondent is guilty of committing the acts of forgery or fabrication of documents. That being so, this Court does not find any good ground which would warrant interference with the award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that mill itself has been closed down and that the payment of interest would be very onerous and makes a request that the interest be waived off.
9. If the petitioner pays the amount to the workman within two months, the interest shall be re-worked and calculated at the rate of 3%. In the event, the amount is not paid within two months, the rate of interest as stipulated by the Labour Court would become applicable.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR