IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.57546 OF 2018 (L-RES) Between:
Sri.Krishnadevaraya Educational Trust, A registered Trust having its office at No.16, Bellary Road, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 560080.
Represented by its Secretary Mr.Syama Raju.
(By Sri.Mohumed Sadiqh.B.A, Advocate) AND:
T.G.Puttegowda, S/o Late B.P.Giriyappa, Aged about 59 years, R/at No.18, Srilakshmi, 9th A Main, 2nd Cross, Chikkabettahalli, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru – 560097.
(By Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, Advocate) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This writ petition is filed under articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records of I.D.No.29/2015 before the Principal Labour Court Bengaluru and set aside the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in I.D.No.29/2015 by the Principal Labour Court at Annexure-A and consequently upheld the dismissal order dated 12.05.2015 dismissing the respondent from the services and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner – Management of an Educational Trust is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying a challenge to the judgment and award dated 12.10.2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the respondent - workman is ordered to be paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
2. After service of notice, the workman having entered appearance through his counsel, opposes the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set at naught for the following reasons:
(a) the Labour Court at Paragraph 18 of its award has held that the domestic enquiry has been held in a way just & reasonable; it has found fault with the Management in removing the respondent from service because “Except one incident, the second party has not shown any other incident…….” In a matter involving moral turpitude too many incidents are not necessary; may be that the Labour Court was ruminating Shakespearean quote “one sparrow makes not the summer”, forgetting the proved fact matrix of guilt; such being the case, the award is infected with material irregularity warranting indulgence of the writ Court;
(b) the reliance placed upon by the respondent – workman on the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 04.04.1997, in John D’Souza v/s Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Another in W.A.No.728/1995 that even after the finding of the enquiry officer, it is open to the Labour Court to differ from the same would not lend sustenance to the impugned award inasmuch as, the Labour court has not disagreed with the findings of the domestic enquiry at all; although in view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Management and others, 1973 1 LLJ 278, after amendment, vide Section 11A of the Act, the discretion of the Labour Court is enormously widened, no case was made out for the exercise of the same in the favour of the workman;
(c) the Labour Court having found the domestic enquiry just and reasonable, could not have exercised the statutorily vested discretion in favour of the workman sans disagreement with the findings as to imputation in the domestic enquiry, which is a precondition even going by the ratio laid down in the decisions supra, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Management;
(d) there is yet another reason for granting indulgence in the matter; if the impugned award is upheld that virtually amounts to placing premium on illegal act which has been proved in the enquiry by the Management against the workman, with the deposition of the petrol bunk owner as to under-filling of the quantum of fuel and thereby pocketing of the amount by the workman; this has happened for quite some time; a Court cannot place premium on such immoral act on the ground that it is one solutary incident; and, (e) the contention that the workman was an Ex- serviceman and that he has put in 24 years of service with the petitioner – Management does not absolve him from the liability for the culpable act which has been established in the domestic enquiry, that is not found fault with by the Labour Court; this apart, the gravity of the culpability is enhanced because the respondent – workman has pocketed the excess money though his demand for pay revision was acceded to by the Management.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; the impugned award is quashed.
However, this order shall not justify the petitioner – Management withholding the terminal benefits admissible to the respondent – workman as per service rules if already not sanctioned and settled. Therefore, a direction accordingly issues to the petitioner – Management, to do the needful in this regard, within six weeks.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE NS