IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.51497 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. GUNDANAIKA, S/O RAMANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT HOLEBENAVALLI, 3RD CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK.
(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . S.MAC SECURITY SERVICES PVT LTD., NO.232, 6TH ‘A’ MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, NEAR BANASVADI POLICE STATION, KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . THE PROPRIETOR, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, KARNATAKA SANGHA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 202.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SHIVAMOGGA IN KID NO.2/2018 DATED 22.06.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED, PERVERSE AND CAPRICIOUS AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner a dismissed security guard is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the award dated 22.6.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A rendered by the learned Principal Labour Court, Shivamogga, whereby, the reference in KID No.2/2018 having been negatived after consideration, the dispute is dismissed.
2. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Para 13 of the impugned award states as under:
“13. To substantiate the specific contention taken by the 2nd party-respondents, they have produced Ex.R5 the correspondences between respondents No.1 & 2 i.e., S. Mac Security Services Private Limited and Manager of South Indian Bank. As per Ex.R5, the request was made by the Manager of South Indian Bank on 10.11.2017. When the specific instances was quoted, wherein 1st party has collected the cash from the ATM and on the same day, the bank authorities have noticed difference of amount and when he was asked about the unclaimed cash, he denied that he has not found any cash. Subsequently, on 27.10.2017 when down loaded CC camera footages have been shown to the 1st party-Security Guard, he has admitted that he has collected the cash and kept in his pocket and allegation made is in Ex.R5 that 1st party used to attend to Security Guard work by consuming alcohol and he used to misbehave with public as well as staff. It is also communicated that as per the terms and conditions between them, age of the security guard is required to be in between 21 to 40 years and age of the 1st party is more than 50 years. After receipt of this letter from the Manager of the South Indian Bank, the S. Mac Security Services Private Limited has changed the work place of the 1st party.”
3. The finding recorded by the Labour Court shows that the petitioner-workmen has not only licked his fingers as a honey sucker but licks the honey comb itself and such an unscrupulous person cannot be shown any mercy, in view the admission recorded by Labour Court, above which has not been challenged herein by him.
Accordingly, Writ Petition is rejected.
However, this order shall not come in the way of petitioner seeking other service benefits in accordance with law, if he is otherwise entitled.
Sd/- JUDGE DS