Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 169 (KAR)

General Manager v. Mallesha @ Manjegowda

2017-01-30

G.NARENDAR

body2017
ORDER : Mr. G. Narendar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Chikmagaluru, dated 27.08.2016, passed in I.D. Application No. 2/2013, dated 27.08.2016, whereby the Labour Court was pleased to allow the I.D. Application preferred under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and having further directed the employer i.e" the petitioner herein to reinstate the First Party i.e., the respondent herein into service with immediate effect and further to pay 50% of the back-wages to the employee from the date of his dismissal i.e. 24.12.2012 until the date of reinstatement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court has rued in passing the order without even examining the evidenciary value of Exs.M11. 14, 15 and 23. He would submit that the workman i.e., the respondent herein was guilty of the offence of assault on the security guard when he was questioned by the said security guard. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had left the work place without authorization and when he attempted to reenter the work place. He was called upon by the security guard to press the impress machine, which is placed there to record the ingress and egress of the employees from the work site and that the respondent took the offence to the same and assaulted the security guard. He would submit that the respondent is habituated to defying the authority and hence the Labour Court ought not to have intervened with the order passed pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the petitioner. He would further submit that once the Labour Court concluded that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, it ought not to have intervened with the punishment imposed pursuant to the fair enquiry. He would further submit that Ex.M23-apology letter was voluntarily given by the delinquent employee to the police, wherein he apologizes for his behaviour and that if the said exhibit is read with Ex.M 15 [an extract of the police register in respect of the non-cognisable offence], it is sufficient to hold that the allegation of assault stands proved and hence, the intervention of the Labour Court with the punishment imposed on the respondent is unsustainable, 5. A careful perusal of the Labour Court's Award would reveal that the main thrust of the argument and the crux of the allegation on behalf of the petitioner/employer was that the employee had left the factory premises during the working hours without obtaining permission from his higher ups and that in this regard, a report came to be placed, based upon which, a show-cause notice was issued and an enquiry was conducted. 6. The Labour Court has appreciated the admissions by the Management's witnesses, wherein it was admitted that the employee had rendered 15 years of unblemished service and that apart from the two incidents of the workman leaving and returning to the work site, without obtaining prior permission of the superior, there are no other adverse remark or complaint against the said employee and thereafter, it has proceeded to hold that the punishment of dismissal, for the alleged offence of absence from the work place, is itself shocking and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and thereafter was pleased to allow the application. 7. On a query from this Court as to whether the so called assault by the respondent has resulted in any injury or otherwise to the security guard, it is replied negative by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also admit that the security guard has not been examined before the Labour Court. It is also seen that no evidence of the police apart from the apology letter is placed on record. It is fairly admitted that the said apology letter was prepared in the police station and Ex.M 15 is nothing but acknowledgment issued by the police regarding the allegation of commission of the non-cognisable offence. 8. That apart, the counter-statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court is also relevant for adjudicating this allegation of assault. A perusal of para Nos. 12 and 14 would demonstrate that the case of the petitioner is that the respondent abused the security guard in a filthy language. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent is a habituated to defying the superiors. A perusal of the counter-statement does not reveal any other incident of misbehaviour nor does it state a case as to whether any direct order of superior has been disobeyed by the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent is a habituated to defying the superiors. A perusal of the counter-statement does not reveal any other incident of misbehaviour nor does it state a case as to whether any direct order of superior has been disobeyed by the respondent. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Award is neither perverse nor contrary to the law and it is founded on sound reasoning and appreciation of the material on record. 9. Hence this writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly rejected. There shall be no/order as to costs.