Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 856 (KAR)

S. Kabali v. Chief Traffic Manager, BMTC

2016-11-14

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2016
ORDER : A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. Challenge in this petition is to the Award as at Annexure-A of the Labour Court, Bangalore. The petitioner was a Conductor in BMTC. While he was on duty on 04.11.1996, the bus was checked by the checking squad. Misconduct having been noticed and a report submitted, Disciplinary Authority served Articles of Charge dated 11.11.1996. Disciplinary enquiry having followed, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal from service of the BMTC by an order dated 20.11.1998. A dispute having been raised long thereafter, a reference was made by the Government in exercise of the power under Section 10(1)(c) & (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) to the Labour Court and the case was registered in Ref. No. 19/2014. Claim statement and counter statement having been filed by the parties and evidence adduced by both sides, a preliminary issue raised with regard to raising the dispute after long lapse of time was answered in the negative. Labour Court having found that the dispute was raised after 14 years from the date of imposition of punishment, finding that the dispute is stale, as the workman failed to establish the delay and laches, Award dated 28.02.2015 was passed and the reference was answered in negative. 2. Sri. M.C. Basavaraju, learned advocate contended that the Labour Court has committed error and illegality in taking note of the past history of the workman to have committed 40 misconducts. Learned counsel submitted that even though some of the Conductors working in the BMTC are involved in more than 200 serious default cases, no action was taken and discriminatory treatment was meted out to the petitioner and that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the case properly. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court is unjustified in denying relief to the workman merely on account of the delay. He submitted that the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority having not been considered till April, 2003 and the petitioner having met with an accident and completely bed ridden, filed MVC No. 5074/2003 in the MACT, Bangalore and after recovery, raised the dispute : on 10.05.2013. He submitted that the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority having not been considered till April, 2003 and the petitioner having met with an accident and completely bed ridden, filed MVC No. 5074/2003 in the MACT, Bangalore and after recovery, raised the dispute : on 10.05.2013. Learned counsel submitted that there is failure on the part of the Labour Court in not taking the said aspects into consideration and as such it has committed error and illegality' in holding the dispute as stale and not entitling the workman to any relief. Alternatively, learned counsel contended that there is failure on the part of the Labour Court in not exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Act. 3. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand by taking me through the record of the case submitted that there being no denial of the fact that the petitioner has past history of having committed 40 misconducts and the punishment order dated 11.11.1996 having not been questioned in an appeal and the dispute having been raised during 2013, there being inordinate delay, Labour Court is justified in passing the order, rejecting the reference. 4. Considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Point for consideration is, whether any interference with the impugned Award is warranted? 5. With reference to the record of domestic enquiry held by following the procedure contemplated under law, the order of removal dated 20.11.1998 was passed against the petitioner. No material was produced before the Labour Court or in this petition, with regard to filing of appeal i.e., assailing the said order of removal. This petition, after hearing was adjourned on 11.11.2016, to enable the petitioner to make available the Judgment/Award in proof of he having sustained injury and being bed ridden, till the Judgment in MVC No. 5074/2003 was passed. No material was produced to prove the alleged accident and the consequential treatment etc. and as such, the plea of being bed ridden has not been established. There is no material forthcoming with regard to the petitioner being unable to move about and take lawful action within a reasonable period to assail the order of removal passed on 20.11.1998 against him. 6. Dispute was raised during 2013 as against the order of removal from service dated 20.11.1998. There is no material forthcoming with regard to the petitioner being unable to move about and take lawful action within a reasonable period to assail the order of removal passed on 20.11.1998 against him. 6. Dispute was raised during 2013 as against the order of removal from service dated 20.11.1998. The Government made the reference in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Act after 14 years. The dispute being stale, Labour Court, upon consideration has held that there is no justification for the workman to raise the dispute after long lapse of 14 years. The view taken by the Labour Court being in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others, AIR 2000 SC 839 and (ii) State of Karnataka and another v. Ravi Kumar (2009) 13 SCC 746 , there is no scope for interference with the finding on the issue of delay and laches. 7. The petitioner/workman having admitted the suggestion that earlier he was involved in 40 cases of misconduct and in all those cases, he was imposed with lighter punishments and there being no improvement in his conduct, Labour Court having examined the case with reference to its power under Section 11-A of the Act, has held that the punishment imposed is not disproportionate. 8. The petitioner's involvement in 40 cases of misconduct having not been disputed and as the findings recorded by the Labour Court, both on the questions of delay and the proportionality of the punishment and with regard to the misconduct in question was not been shown to be perverse or illegal, no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is warranted. 9. In the result, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.