Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 686 (KAR)

Chief Traffic Manager v. C. Puttaiah

2018-06-11

A.S.BOPANNA

body2018
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the Award dated 29.02.2012 in Reference No. 20/2011. 2. The respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner - Corporation. On the allegation of remaining unauthorizedly absent between the periods from 05.10.2005 to 21.02.2007, the petitioner - Corporation having held appropriate proceedings had dismissed the respondent from service with effect from 08.09.2007. The respondent had raised a dispute in Reference No. 20/2011. The Labour Court through its Award dated 29.02.2012 on taking note that though the dismissal was at a point when the main dispute between the workman of the petitioner-Corporation and the petitioner - Corporation was pending in I.D. No. 148/2005, no approval was obtained as contemplated under Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was of the opinion that the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. In that view, the Labour Court having also taken note that the workman had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010, ordered that the continuity of service from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation be taken into consideration and the benefits be paid. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said Award is before this Court in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the Award would contend that such consideration by the Labour Court is not justified inasmuch as the Labour Court ought to have adverted to the merits of the contention and in that light the charge as alleged against the respondent - workman should have been taken into consideration and thereafter a conclusion ought to have been reached. In that regard the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, NEKRTC v. Shivasharanappa 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1135. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the Award passed by the Labour Court. 5. In that regard the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, NEKRTC v. Shivasharanappa 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1135. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the Award passed by the Labour Court. 5. In that light having taken note of the rival contentions, what is necessary to be taken into consideration in the instant case is that the Labour Court while arriving at its conclusion to set-aside the Order of dismissal on the ground that approval had not been obtained under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jailpur Zila Sahakari Bhoomo Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma and others 2002 (1) LLJ 834 . 6. It is in that light the Labour Court was of the Opinion that the Management not having obtained the approval under Section 33 (2) (b) section of the Industrial Disputes Act, the order of dismissed would become non-est. As against the same as has been indicated in the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner a consideration on merit was also required. However, what is necessary to be taken notes is that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining a situation where the Labour Court after taking into consideration the entire merits of the matter had rendered its findings and that circumstance when the matter was being examined by the High Court. The High Court without adverting to that aspect of the matter had set-aside the Award of the labour Court only on the ground that approval had not been obtained. In the instant case, at best the matter ought to have been remanded to the Labour Court to consider the merits. 7. Therefore, in the circumstance and also taking into consideration the fact that in the instant case, the workmen had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010. and at this stage, if such a consideration is to be made by the Labour Court it would be an empty formality and also since it is stated that the workman has expired and the legal heir of the deceased workmen would not be in a position to put forth the case effectively before the Labour Court. and at this stage, if such a consideration is to be made by the Labour Court it would be an empty formality and also since it is stated that the workman has expired and the legal heir of the deceased workmen would not be in a position to put forth the case effectively before the Labour Court. In that view, taking note of the circumstance that the ultimate benefit in any event is only for the period between 08.9.2007. to 30.11.2010. and also taking into consideration the fact that the charge alleged against the workman is not find any reason to interface with the impugned award. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits stand disposed of.