Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 30 (KAR)

Divisional Controller v. Suresh

2023-01-04

E.S.INDIRESH

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Writ Petition No.65254/2010 is filed by the Corporation challenging the award dtd. 23/1/2010 passed in KID No.16/2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court', for brevity). Writ Petition No.61021/2012 is filed by the Corporation challenging the order dtd. 18/10/2011 in Application No.28/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur. The respondent in both these petitions, who is the delinquent, died during the pendency of the petitions on 30/11/2020 and the LRs of deceased delinquent were brought on record. 2. The factual matrix in Writ Petition No.65254/2010 is that, the petitioner Corporation has initiated departmental enquiry against the delinquent and after conducting enquiry, order of dismissal was passed and being aggrieved by the same, the delinquent has challenged the same in KID No.16/2008. The respondent - Corporation entered appearance and filed detailed objections. The Tribunal after considering the material on record allowed the claim petition in part and as such, order of dismissal dtd. 18/3/2008 was set aside and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent Corporation has preferred this writ petition. 3. Insofar as W.P.No.61021/2012 is concerned, the Corporation has initiated departmental enquiry against the delinquent and after full pledged enquiry, the Corporation has issued the order of dismissal dtd. 18/3/2008 and being aggrieved by the same, the delinquent has filed KID No.16/2008 which came to be allowed in part and as such, order of dismissal dtd. 18/3/2008 was set aside with a direction to the respondent - Corporation to reinstate the delinquent into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits. Thereafter, the delinquent has filed an application under Sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act ', for short) seeking wages from the Corporation and the Labour Court by order dtd. 18/10/2011, allowed the application in KID No.16/2008 in part and being aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has preferred this writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anand Bagewadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Insofar as Writ Petition No.65254/2010, Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation contended that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court requires to be set aside on the ground that the Departmental enquiry was initiated against the delinquent for alleged misconduct. Anand Bagewadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Insofar as Writ Petition No.65254/2010, Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation contended that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court requires to be set aside on the ground that the Departmental enquiry was initiated against the delinquent for alleged misconduct. He further contended that, the accident occurred while the delinquent was working as a driver in the Corporation and as a result of the same, 20 passengers were died in the spot and 26 passengers were sustained grievous injuries and therefore, enquiry was initiated against the delinquent after issuance of imputation of charges. Hence he submitted that, the finding recorded by the Labour Court, setting aside the dismissal order dtd. 18/3/2008 is non est and requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 6. Insofar as Writ Petition No.61021/2012, Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation contended that, the said application is not maintainable in view of the fact that the charges have been proved against the delinquent during the Departmental Enquiry and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the application. 7. Per contra, Sri.Anand Bagewadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the award passed by the Labour Court in KID No.16/2008 and argued that the respondent herein are entitled for the wages determined by the Labour Court in Application No.28/2011 filed under Sec. 33 C(2) of the ID Act . 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the impugned order passed by the Labour Court in both the petitions. 9. The Labour Court after considering the material on record and taking into account the deposition of MW1 and MW2 in KID No.16/2018, has rightly allowed the petition in part holding that there is no basis for the Corporation to dismiss the delinquent except the contention raised with regard to the alleged accident said to have been held when the delinquent was driving the bus. 10. 10. In this connection, following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi reported in AIR 2011 SC 3546 , it is held that, if the findings of the Labour Court are based on reasons, High Court, by exercising writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same and therefore, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the award dtd. 23/1/2010 passed in KID No.16/2008 by the Labout Court and accordingly, W.P.No.65254/2010 is liable to be dismissed. 11. Insofar as the finding recorded by the Labour Court in Application No.28/2011, having arrived at a conclusion that there is no infirmity in the order of the Labour Court in the proceedings in KID No.16/2008, I am of the view that the LRs of the delinquent are entitled for the benefits accrued thereon. In this connection, I have carefully examined the language employed under Sec. 33C(2) of the ID Act. 12. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court Cholan Roadways Ltd., Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241 , I find force in the submission made by Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi that the reasons assigned by the Labour Court accepting the application is incorrect and accordingly the order dtd. 18/10/2011 in Application No.28/2011 cannot be accepted and accordingly, the petition in W.P.No.61021/2012 requires to be allowed by setting aside the order dtd. 18/10/2011 in Application No.28/2011. 13. With these observations, I pass the following: ORDER W.P.No.65254/2010 is dismissed. The order dtd. 23/1/2010 passed in KID No.16/2008 is confirmed. W.P.No.61021/2012 is allowed. The order dtd. 18/10/2011 passed in Application No.28/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur, is set aside.