Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1923 (KAR)

MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC v. C. J. BRIGANZA

2019-08-30

P.G.M.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2019
JUDGMENT S.N. Satyanarayana, J. - The petitioners in W.P. No.67250 of 2009 on the file of the learned single Judge of this Court have come up in this intra-court appeal impugning the order dated 05.11.2016. 2. Admittedly, the appellants herein are challenging not only the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.67250 of 2009 but also the order, dated 02.04.2009, passed by the Labour Court, Hubli, in KID No.75/1999 where the order of dismissal dated 25.02.1999 passed by the Chief Traffic Manager of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was set aside, and consequently, 50% backwages from the date of dismissal till the age of superannuation is considered along with consequential benefits. The Labour Court also observed that in the event of failure to comply its order, the Disciplinary Authority will be liable to be punished under Sections 25-U and 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In addition to that, various other directions were also issued by the Labour Court. 3. The said order of the Labour Court passed in KID No.75/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Hubli, was challenged before the learned single Judge in W.P. No.67250/2009 (L-K) which came to be disposed off by order dated 05.11.2016, as stated supra, wherein the order/award of the Labour Court in KID No.75/1999 was confirmed sofar as it pertained to setting aside the order of dismissal dated 25.02.1999; with reference to certain directions which were issued at Sl.Nos.3 to 6 in the said order, the same were set aside. Consequently, the Management herein was directed to hold de novo enquiry in accordance with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ('KSRTC Regulations', for short) by following the principles of natural justice, with an observation that the de novo enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible within four months from the date of issuance of a certified copy of that order. In the said order, liberty was also reserved to the petitioners to demonstrate as to whether the delinquent employee was gainfully employed during the interregnum period i.e., from the date of his dismissal from service till the date he reached the age of superannuation, in the de novo enquiry to be conducted. 4. In the said order, liberty was also reserved to the petitioners to demonstrate as to whether the delinquent employee was gainfully employed during the interregnum period i.e., from the date of his dismissal from service till the date he reached the age of superannuation, in the de novo enquiry to be conducted. 4. It is this order which is sought to be challenged in this intra-court appeal on the following grounds: (i) Firstly, the order of the Labour Court, which is partially confirmed by the learned single Judge is erroneous on the ground that, in the dispute which is raised by the employee, he had not taken a specific stand that the Article of Charges were issued by an Officer who was not competent to issue the same, hence, the enquiry is vitiated; (ii) Though such a defence was not available from the point of the employee, the Labour Court, on its own, picked up that as one of the grounds to conclude that the order of the dismissal passed by the competent authority is without any basis. While doing so, considering the fact that the employee had by then reached the age of superannuation, various other directions were issued with reference to the monetary benefits to the employee; (iii) The Appellant/Management, being aggrieved by the same had approached this Court in W.P. No.67250/2009 in so far as it pertained to the finding of the Labour Court with reference to the Article of Charges being issued by an Officer not having any competence to issue the same and consequently holding that the enquiry is vitiated; (iv) The further grievance of the appellants is, the learned single Judge also committed very same mistake in not looking into the relevant provisions of the KSRTC Regulations and also not looking into the designation of the person who issued the Article of Charges and the designation of the Authority which conducted the Disciplinary Enquiry, while considering interference with the order of dismissal which was passed by the competent authority viz., the Chief Traffic Manager, KSRTC. 5. In this proceeding, though notice is duly served on the respondent-employee, he has remained ex parte. It is also seen that he remained ex parte in the proceedings before the learned single Judge also. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. In this proceeding, though notice is duly served on the respondent-employee, he has remained ex parte. It is also seen that he remained ex parte in the proceedings before the learned single Judge also. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the order of the learned single Judge as well as the award/order passed by the Labour Court, Hubli. On going through the material available on record, it is seen that the nature of charges which are leveled against the respondent-employee viz., C.J.Briganza is that during the working hours, the said employee, along with other staff of KSRTC, had indulged in playing cards within the precincts of the KSRTC, more particularly, in its depot premises. It is stated that when the superior Officer noticed that the respondent and other employees were playing cards in the depot shed, the main line of power supply to the depot was switched off, but even thereafter, the respondent with other employees was playing cards by putting on the headlights of the buses which were parked there. It is in this background, Article of Charges was issued to him making serious accusations which are in the nature of eight charges in the Article of Charges which was given to him. 7. It is seen that the aforesaid misconduct is said to have been committed by the delinquent employee when he was working in Kudligi Depot of Ballari District. Subsequent to the aforesaid incident, he was transferred to Sirsi Depot. When he was in Sirsi Depot, the Divisional Controller of Sirsi Depot, who is the head of the said Depot, had issued Article of Charges. In fact, as per Schedule (at Sl.No.5) to the 'KSRTC Regulations', the Disciplinary Authority is held to be a person who is Class-II/Class-I Junior Officer having administrative control over the said division with reference to Class-III and Class-IV employees of the said division. Further, Regulation 23(4) of 'KSRTC Regulations' would empower the Divisional Controller to issue Articles of Charges. 8. In the instant case, as we could see, the delinquent employee was a Class-III employee and Article of Charges was issued to him by the head of the division viz., the Divisional Controller. Further, Regulation 23(4) of 'KSRTC Regulations' would empower the Divisional Controller to issue Articles of Charges. 8. In the instant case, as we could see, the delinquent employee was a Class-III employee and Article of Charges was issued to him by the head of the division viz., the Divisional Controller. Therefore, the ground which is raised by the Labour Court, on its own, without there being any pleading by the delinquent employee, that the entrustment of the said work to the Officer at Sirsi instead of the same being conducted by the Officer at Ballari, is erroneous and does not stand to reason, particularly, in the nature of the Article of Charges issued against the employee and also with reference to the manner in which the entire proceedings is conducted following KSRTC Regulations, where Regulation No.22 is stated to permit such procedure being adopted. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the finding of the Labour Court on the issue which was not raised, as a defence by the delinquent employee is erroneous. Accordingly, the same is required to be set aside. However, while looking into the order of the learned single Judge, it is clearly seen that the learned single Judge without ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the Labour Court, has categorically stated that the same is not required to be looked into. Therefore, the said observation also calls for interference by this Court in this intra-court appeal. 9. When the aforesaid two observations are set aside, what remains is the order of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of the dismissal passed against the delinquent employee on the aforesaid flimsy ground which was not even raised by the employee in the proceedings before the Labour Court. In that view of the matter, the award/order of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the competent authority is required to be set aside. Consequently, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is required to be confirmed. When once the said order is confirmed, the question of considering the prayer of the delinquent employee for other benefits does not arise. Consequently, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority is required to be confirmed. When once the said order is confirmed, the question of considering the prayer of the delinquent employee for other benefits does not arise. Accordingly, the order/award of the Labour Court is set aside in its entirety and consequently, the order, dated 05.11.2016, passed by the learned single Judge, in W.P. No.67250/2009, confirming a portion of the order/award of the Labour Court, is also set aside, by allowing this appeal.