Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 394 (KAR)

Divisional Controller Nekrtc v. Abdulshukur

2013-03-22

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Registry to receive the cheque and on realization of the amount, to transmit the same to the Labour Court at Bijapur, for disbursement in favour of the respondent-workman. This writ petition by the North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bijapur Division is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 17.11.2011 rendered in KID No. 35/2011. 2. The workman who had suffered the order of dismissal at the hands of the Management following an enquiry and followed by disciplinary proceedings, had filed the claim petition before the Labour Court under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contending that the enquiry was not fair, proper and it was not done in a procedural manner and the order of dismissal is not justified etc. 3. The Labour Court set aside the domestic enquiry and on finding that it was not procedural order, permitted the Management to adduce evidence to make good its charges against the workman. However, on the evidence produced by the Management, the Labour Court opined that the Management has not made good the charges of the workman-conductor collecting fare from four passengers and not issuing tickets to them. In the circumstances, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with full back wages. 4. It is aggrieved by this order and award of the Labour Court, the present writ petition. 5. Notice had been issued and the respondent-workman is represented by Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate. 6. This Court had granted an interim order, staying operation of the order relating to back wages to the extent of 25%, subject to the writ petitioner depositing 25% of the back wages before this Court. 7. It is in this background, matter has come up for orders before the Court and the Registry has noted as to whether the cheque deposited by the petitioner-Corporation before this Court can be accepted. Registry has already been directed to accept the cheque and realise the amount. 8. I have heard Sri. Sudhirsing R. Vijapur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. 9. The only question is as to whether the Labour Court is justified in awarding full back wages. 10. Registry has already been directed to accept the cheque and realise the amount. 8. I have heard Sri. Sudhirsing R. Vijapur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. 9. The only question is as to whether the Labour Court is justified in awarding full back wages. 10. It is found that the disciplinary proceedings were not either deliberate or inductive but in the normal course, as it was found that the respondent-workman has indulged in certain misconduct. 11. It may be another aspect that the Management is unable to make good its charge before the Labour Court by adducing evidence. 12. In the circumstance, I find it just and proper to reduce the back wages awarded by the Labour Court to 75% of the back wages and the amount of 25% which has been deposited and is sought to be transmitted to the Labour Court for disbursement in favour of the workman, can be adjusted for the same, if the workman is still due any amount by way of back wages as per this order. To this extent, writ petition is allowed and ordered. The back wages is reduced from 100% to 75%.