Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 191 (KAR)

Management Of Nwkrtc v. Pandurang

2023-02-01

E.S.INDIRESH

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinay Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the Labour Court, particularly with regard to Issue No.2 and submitted that, though the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that, the absence of the respondent/workman amounts to misconduct, ought not to have ordered for reinstatement of the workman with 50% of back wages. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. Vinay Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully examined the impugned order dtd. 10/2/2011. It is not in dispute that, the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner-corporation and on account of the being absent from attending the duty from 18/3/2006 to 31/8/2007, i.e. for a period of 01 year 05 months 13 days, the petitioner-Corporation initiated enquiry against the respondent-workman and by order dtd. 31/3/2010 dismissed the respondent-workman from service. Being aggrieved by the same, the workman has filed petition under Sec. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987) Act, 1947, before the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi. The Labour Court after considering the material on record, by its award dtd. 10/2/2011 allowed the claim petition in part and as such directed the petitioner-management to reinstate the workman/respondent with consequential benefits. The Labour Court has also awarded 50% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the workman is reinstated. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondentcorporation has presented this writ petition. 6. Having taken note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the workman was absent from 18/3/2006 to 31/8/2007. The Tribunal having taken note of the factual aspects that the leave sought for by the workman on medical ground and as such arrived at a conclusion that, the workman has committed a misconduct. However, looking into the grievance urged by the workman therein, held that, it is a misconduct but not a grave misconduct. The Tribunal having taken note of the factual aspects that the leave sought for by the workman on medical ground and as such arrived at a conclusion that, the workman has committed a misconduct. However, looking into the grievance urged by the workman therein, held that, it is a misconduct but not a grave misconduct. Having taken note of the said findings, I am of the opinion that, the Tribunal being a quasi-judicial authority once comes to the conclusion based on the evidence that, the workman has committed a misconduct, ought to have taken appropriate steps to decide the matter on merits. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that re-instatement awarding 50% of back wages based on no evidence is not a grave misconduct. In that view, order dtd. 10/2/2011 passed by the Labour Court is to be set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly. 7. It is also made clear that, since the parties are represented by their learned counsels, the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 20/2/2023 at 11.00 a.m. and on such appearance of the parties, the Labour Court is requested to conclude the entire proceedings within three months from their appearance.