Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 612 (KAR)

NEKRTC, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR v. VITHOBA

2019-03-11

KRISHNA S.DIXIT

body2019
JUDGMENT : Krishna S.Dixit, J. Heard the learned panel counsel for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the respondent. 2. The petitioner-North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is before this Court in it's writ jurisdiction assailing the judgment and award dated 18.07.2009 rendered by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in K.I.D. No.83/2005, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B, whereby the dismissal of the respondent-conductor has been set at naught with a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service sans backwages. 3. After service of notice, the respondent workman entered appearance through his learned counsel, Sri Prashant S.Kadadevar, who opposes the writ petition. 4. Learned panel counsel for the petitioner- Transport Corporation submits that the impugned judgment and award are bad in law inasmuch as the grave charge that the respondent-conductor had prevented the checking official from gaining entry to the bus for checking the tickets, and also that the respondent had instigated the passengers to cause obstruction, is held to have been proved and therefore, such unruly workman could not have been shown any mercy. 5. The panel counsel further submits that the Labour Court has specifically recorded a finding that the respondent was imposed with reformative penalty earlier having had nineteen past history defaults; this apart, the Labour Court has specifically negatived the allegation of unfair labour practice leveled by the respondent against the management. So arguing, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman vehemently contends that the Labour Court is an expert body having the advantage of accumulated wisdom; in exercise of its wisdom, in the fact matrix of the case, it has granted a discretionary relief by invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter 'the I.D. Act, 1947', for short); almost a decade has lapsed since the award was made and that the respondent having been reinstated, has shown exemplary service by earning encomia; he has put in more than twenty years of service by now and that his age of superannuation is fast approaching. So arguing, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard panel counsel for the petitioner- Transport Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. I have perused the petition papers and I have read the rulings cited at the Bar. 8. So arguing, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard panel counsel for the petitioner- Transport Corporation and the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. I have perused the petition papers and I have read the rulings cited at the Bar. 8. The contention of the petitioner-Transport Corporation that the Labour Court having found the respondent guilty of grave allegation could not have exercised the discretion under Section 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947, is thoroughly substantiated going by the following findings of the Labour Court: (a) At the fag end of paragraph 10 of the impugned award, the Labour Court states as under: "10. He himself admits that the checking officials came and when they came for checking the Bus, why they went back without checking the Bus, in case the first party did not caused any obstruction. It indicates that the checking officials on that day came for checking, certainly, the first party did not permit them to check and also it appears. He instigated the passengers to caused obstruction etc. thus, on perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence this court came to the conclusion that the alleged misconduct has proved by the Management against the first party." (b) At the beginning of paragraph 11, the Labour Court further observes as under: "11. There is allegation of 19 past history default cases against the first party and same also cannot be denied because the list of past history default cases is produced in the file and he was imposed with reformatory penalty. In a span of 20 years of services the 19 past history default cases are not more. . This court on perusal of the contents of Ex.W-1 and Ex.P-18, including the contents of reported and unreported Judgments relied by the counsel for the first party is of the opinion that there is no question of following unfair labour practice against the first party, because the alleged misconduct has proved against him." 9. As Shakespeare had said centuries ago, that even an honest honey sucker licks his fingers, is true. As Shakespeare had said centuries ago, that even an honest honey sucker licks his fingers, is true. But, here is a case where the honey sucker just not only licks his fingers; he, militantly acts as a stinging bee and strikes the very honey-comb itself inasmuch as the proven charge is not just of pilferage but a grave misconduct of preventing the higher officials from gaining entry to the bus, and further of instigating the passengers to obstruct the checking. The mercy shown by the Labour Court in these circumstances is only a misplaced sympathy. 10. The elements of equity are apparently lacking in the conduct of the respondent-workman. Such persons, apart from being a nuisance to the management, will breed indiscipline in the organization. The fact that backwages are denied and the workman is going to retire shortly are no ground for showing mercy. Even subsequent to his reinstatement, the petitioner is shown to be listed for as many as eleven allegations of pilferage and one instance of hitting the Checking Officials with the slippers. 11. For denying mercy, the reason is that the petitioner appears to be incorrigible; he has not drawn any lesson of rectitude from the past experience nor there is any hope that he would draw one in future; there is no act of remorse on his part; eleven cases of pilferage and one case of hitting the higher officials with the slippers are pending consideration subsequent to his reinstatement that too when this Court considering the challenge to the impugned Award whereunder he has gained reinstatement. This is too much. Referred to the judgment cited at the Bar. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned judgment and award dated 18.07.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in K.I.D. No.83/2005.