Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 634 (KAR)

L. SRINIVAS v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC

2018-05-30

A.S.BOPANNA

body2018
ORDER : Mr. A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 16.11.2011 passed in KID No.16/2011 insofar as the Labour Court not granting the continuity of service for all other purposes including the consequential benefits and also contending that the alternate arrangement as imposed by the Labour Court is too onerous, though a modification has been made by the Labour Court. 2. The petitioner raised a dispute against the dismissal order dated 15.10.2010 seeking that the petitioner be reinstated into service with all benefits. The dispute was registered in KID No.16/2011. The respondent herein had opposed the prayer as put forth by the petitioner. The Labour Court after having considered the matter, though has found that the order of dismissal is disproportionate, has on setting-aside the same, imposed the alternate punishment of withholding of four increments. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. In that light having heard the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of the petition papers including the Award would indicate that the Labour Court at the outset considered the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and found the same to be in accordance with law through its order dated 02.09.2011. Thereafter while considering the matter to take note as to whether there is any perversity in the findings as rendered by the Enquiry Officer insofar as the merits of the action taken against the petitioner, the Labour Court though has arrived at the conclusion that there was no justification for the petitioner to remain unauthorisedly absent, has also taken into consideration the previous record and in that light has arrived at the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met if an alternate punishment of withholding of four increments is imposed after reinstatement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award, to that extent would contend that the Labour Court having arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement ought not to have denied the continuity of service on the other aspects more particularly when the Labour Court was imposing the alternate punishment of withholding of four increments. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award, to that extent would contend that the Labour Court having arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement ought not to have denied the continuity of service on the other aspects more particularly when the Labour Court was imposing the alternate punishment of withholding of four increments. In that regard it is contended that in such circumstance when the benefit of continuity is not granted and the consequential benefits is also not granted, that itself would amount to denial of the increments which he would have otherwise secured. Therefore, there is no justification in imposing the alternate punishment of withholding four increments. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent would however refer to the nature of consideration as made by the Labour Court and would contend that when all aspects of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Labour Court and the ultimate Award has been passed, this Court cannot arrive at a conclusion that there is any perversity and the Award therefore does not call for interference. 6. In the light of the above, having perused the Award as passed, it is seen that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the factual aspect more particularly with regard to the present misconduct that has been alleged against the petitioner with regard to the absence between the periods from 30.09.2009 to 08.01.2010. In that light, keeping in view the position of law as enunciated was of the opinion that even if the said misconduct is held established, the dismissal as ordered would be too harsh and therefore, reinstatement has been ordered. To that extent in any event, neither of the parties have any grievance relating to the same. The only issue is with regard to the alternate punishment that has been imposed by the Labour Court. To that extent, it is seen that the Labour Court has ordered that the continuity of service would be taken only for the purpose of retirement benefits and the petitioner would not be entitled to backwages. 7. In that circumstance what is necessary to be taken note is that the Labour Court also has not granted the consequential benefits. Naturally, when backwages has been denied, the question of granting any consequential benefits would not arise. 7. In that circumstance what is necessary to be taken note is that the Labour Court also has not granted the consequential benefits. Naturally, when backwages has been denied, the question of granting any consequential benefits would not arise. However, taking into consideration that the Labour Court has imposed the alternate punishment of withholding of four increments, the denial of even notionally taking the increments for the purpose of fixing the salary as on the date of reinstatement, would not be justified. Therefore, to the said extent, it is ordered that the continuity of service shall be taken for the purpose of providing the consequential benefits in notional terms by providing the increments notionally so as to fix the salary as on the date of reinstatement. However, no amount in monetary terms shall be payable to that extent. Insofar as the alternate punishment, keeping in view the age of the petitioner and the remaining service, imposition of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect would be too onerous and therefore, the said punishment is modified imposing the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. With the said modification to the Award of the Labour Court dated 16.11.2011, the instant petition stands disposed of.