Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 687 (KAR)

Management of KSRTC v. C. Prakash

2018-06-11

A.S.BOPANNA

body2018
ORDER : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioner-Corporation is before this Court assailing the award dated 31.12.2014 passed in I.D.A. No. 6/2012 impugned at Annexure-H to the petition. 2. The respondent herein was working as a 'Driver' in the petitioner-Corporation. On the allegation that he had remained unauthorisedly absent during the periods 19.05.2010 to 21.08.2010, action was initiated and enquiry was held, pursuant to which the dismissal order dated 10.02.2012 was passed. The respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same had filed a dispute application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru. The Labour Court, on taking note of the rival contentions before it, had raised four points for its consideration. At the outset, the validity of the domestic enquiry held against the respondent herein was considered and it was held to be fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court has considered the matter in detail to find out as to whether there is any perversity in the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer in its consideration. Having taken note of the circumstance has arrived at the conclusion that the dismissal order would not be justified and has directed reinstatement of the respondent into his original post with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits with back wages to the extent of 50% from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner-Corporation claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award would take me through the petition papers including the award pointing to the reasons assigned therein. In that regard, it is contended, when there was sufficient document available before the Court and the Labour Court had also taken note of the evidence of the Management through MW-1 and the documents marked at Ex-M 1 to Ex-M46, the conclusion ultimately arrived is not justified. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would however refer to the nature of consideration as made and has also referred to the observations made by the Labour Court, where the Disciplinary Authority has without application of mind accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and would contend that the ultimate conclusion by the Labour Court is justified. 5. In the background of the rival contentions, I have perused the petition papers. 5. In the background of the rival contentions, I have perused the petition papers. As already taken note, the Labour Court had held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. Thereafter while taking note of the documents which were available on record, essentially a consideration in detail is made after referring to the document at Ex-M29 namely, the enquiry report. In that regard, while appreciating the same, the Labour Court had also referred to the documents at Ex-M38 and Ex-M39 namely, the Medical Certificate issued by Sri. Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda and Hospital and the Medical Certificate issued by Justice K.S. HEGDE Charitable Hospital which indicates that the respondent had in fact undergone treatment and had been discharged from the hospital on 12.12.2009. In that circumstance, the Labour Court having taken into consideration the Medical Certificates and having adverted to the nature of treatment taken by the respondent was of the opinion that, during the period he had remained absent, it was due to the reason that he had undergone treatment and had some difficulty. It is in that view, the Labour Court has taken into consideration that the order of dismissal is illegal and arbitrary. Though in the said circumstance, even if the respondent had undergone such treatment and had disability in attending the duties, certainly, the approval of leave should have been taken from the respondent. However that by itself should not be a reason to deny the relief. 6. Be that as it may, considering all these aspects of the matter, when the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the dismissal order would not be appropriate and reinstatement has been granted, this Court while taking note of such award in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not be justified in re-appreciating the evidence, when the Labour Court has referred to the evidence in detail and has thereafter arrived at its conclusion, which does not indicate perversity. 7. Hence, insofar as reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court, I see no reason to interfere. 7. Hence, insofar as reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court, I see no reason to interfere. However, with regard to the back wages as granted, I am of the opinion, it would not be justified, inasmuch as the first aspect is that though the respondent had some justification to remain absent, there is no material on record to indicate that he had produced the same before the employer and got sanction of the leave. In such circumstance, even if the period of absence of the respondent is taken note, it would not be appropriate to grant the back wages. Hence, the award dated 31.12.2014 insofar as granting the back wages is set aside. In all other respects, the award stands confirmed. The petition is accordingly disposed of.