Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2364 (KAR)

MANCHEGOWDA v. HEAD OF FINANCE AND HR

2019-12-20

ASHOK S.KINAGI, RAVI MALIMATH

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11468 of 2014, confirming the order passed by the Labour Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner was appointed as an Enamel Operator with the respondent in the year 1989. He was dismissed from service on 18.03.2003 on some false charges. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, Bangalore, in Industrial Dispute Reference No. 16 of 2003. The Labour Court passed an award on 01.04.2005 and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the respondent, with a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, including 40% backwages and also ordered for withholding of 3 increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner aggrieved by the award dated 01.04.2005, passed by the Labour Court, in so far as it relates to denial of 3 increments with cumulative effect and 60% backwages and all other consequential benefits, filed Writ Petition No. 15107 of 2005 before this court. After a gap of 4 years, the respondent has also filed Writ Petition No.15607 of 2009 before this court challenging the award dated 01.04.2005, passed by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute Reference No. 16 of 2003. Both the writ petitions were clubbed and this court has passed a common order on 21.07.2009, wherein this court has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner by modifying the punishment of withholding of 3 increments with cumulative effect to that of withholding of 2 increments with cumulative effect. However, the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. The respondent challenged the order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, in Writ Appeal Nos.3102-3103 of 2009 connected with Writ Appeal No.4485 of 2009. The Division Bench of this court dismissed both the appeals by the order dated 20.09.2010. That pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 12.06.2005. The petitioner demanded the salary on par with his colleagues. The respondent, deliberately, with an intention to put an end to the service of the petitioner, has kept the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry on false charges vide order dated 23.01.2010. That pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 12.06.2005. The petitioner demanded the salary on par with his colleagues. The respondent, deliberately, with an intention to put an end to the service of the petitioner, has kept the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry on false charges vide order dated 23.01.2010. Thereafter the respondent has issued a charge-sheet/show-cause notice dated 22.02.2010, under which there were two charges leveled against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the charges is that on 08.01.2010, at about 8.30 p.m., near the factory, he has stopped the Accounts Manager Mr.N.D.Lakshmi Kanthraj Urs and physically assaulted him and abused him by using filthy language and vulgar words; that on 22.01.2010, when the petitioner was on duty in the 2nd shift has abused the management and assaulted Sri.Mahesh and Puttaraju. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet/show-cause notice on 17.03.2010, wherein the petitioner denied the charges leveled against him and also explained the reason behind initiating the disciplinary proceedings with false charges, for the second time. The respondent not being satisfied with the reply, appointed one Sri.Shantaram as the inquiry officer to hold inquiry on the alleged misconduct. In the inquiry proceedings, the respondent examined three witnesses i.e., MW-1 to MW-3 and the petitioner did not cross-examine the witnesses and the respondents have produced documents before the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer after due inquiry has submitted a report on 24.12.2010, holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. Based on the report submitted by the inquiry officer, the respondent passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service vide order dated 09.02.2011. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal, raised an industrial dispute before the I Additional Labour Court at Bengaluru in Industrial Dispute No.5 of 2011 under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment Act) 1988 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings framed issues for consideration. Issue No.1 was treated as a preliminary issue and it was held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the respondent-management is fair and proper vide its order dated 29.09.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead evidence. The respondent examined one witness and got marked Exs.M1 to M48. Issue No.1 was treated as a preliminary issue and it was held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the respondent-management is fair and proper vide its order dated 29.09.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead evidence. The respondent examined one witness and got marked Exs.M1 to M48. The Labour Court passed an award on 01.08.2013, rejecting the reference on the ground that the misconduct leveled against the petitioner stood proved in the domestic inquiry. The petitioner aggrieved by the award dated 01.08.2013, passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in Industrial Dispute No.5 of 2011, filed the instant Writ Petition No.11468 of 2014. The learned Single Judge, after re-appreciating the entire material on record, dismissed the writ petition holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner is grave in nature and the quantum of punishment awarded is based on the inquiry and declined to interfere in regard to the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11468 of 2014, has filed this writ appeal. 3. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The Labour Court vide its order dated 29.09.2012, held that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper. The respondent in order to prove the guilt against the petitioner, examined three witnesses namely, Mahesh, Puttaraju and Lakshmi Kanthraj Urs. The petitioner despite being given reasonable and sufficient opportunity, did not cross-examine these witnesses. From the perusal of Ex.M1(a) reveals that the petitioner was present during the inquiry proceedings and he has singed the proceedings sheet till 12.06.2010. It is the case of the respondent's witnesses that the petitioner started abusing in filthy language and threatened them of dire consequences and tried to assault them with stone. Thereafter they lodged a complaint with the management on the same day. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner which was marked as Ex.11(d) in the domestic inquiry and the police have issued a receipt. That the contents of the complaint shows that the petitioner, did restrain Lakshmi Kanthraj Urs from proceeding on his vehicle and assaulted him and the said Lakshmi Kanthraj Urs submitted a report to the President of the company which is marked as Ex.11(b) in the inquiry proceedings. That the contents of the complaint shows that the petitioner, did restrain Lakshmi Kanthraj Urs from proceeding on his vehicle and assaulted him and the said Lakshmi Kanthraj Urs submitted a report to the President of the company which is marked as Ex.11(b) in the inquiry proceedings. The President had sought for police protection vide letter dated 25.01.2010.From the perusal of inquiry report, the inquiry officer after having analyzed and evaluated the evidence of Puttaraju, Mahesh and Lakshmi Kanthraj Urs, held that the petitioner has committed illegal acts against these witnesses and he has committed misconduct as alleged by the respondent. 5. That the appellant was examined as WW-1 before the Labour Court and he admits that he having participated in the inquiry, has signed the inquiry proceedings sheet and he has given a reply to the article of charges and he also admits the receipt of documents in the domestic inquiry. He has further stated that he was victimized. He admits that the complaint was lodged against him on 24.12.2010, before the police. Considering the entire evidence of WW-1, it nowhere reveals that he was being, in any way, victimized by the respondent. 6. That, earlier the petitioner was terminated from service and in respect of the same, Industrial Dispute No.16 of 2003 was filed and the Labour Court allowed the claim of the petitioner in part and the same was upheld by this court in Writ Petition No.15107 of 2005. The documents produced by the respondent proves that the police had arrested the petitioner on the basis of the complaint and later he was enlarged on bail. That the disciplinary authority, after examining and evaluating the inquiry report, held that the charges are proved and passed an order of dismissal from service. 7. If an in disciplined person like the petitioner is continued in service, it will spread an atmosphere of indiscipline among the other co-employees who may venture even not to care the superior officers including the President of the company and if a person like the petitioner, who threatens the superior and tries to assault them with a stone and assault some officials is to be shown leniency, then the same amounts to abuse of the process of court. 8. 8. In a catena of decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, if a person abuses his superiors in filthy language, or tries to assault them and threatens them with dire consequences, then the punishment of termination is most appropriate and the court cannot interfere in such orders passed by the management. 9. In the present case, the charges leveled against the petitioner are grave in nature. He has assaulted his superior officers and misbehaved with them. In the light of all these complaints against the petitioner and in view of the inquiry report which was confirmed by the Labour Court and also by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.