u = : maria.
k (By Sri Ashok Patil, Adv.)
men COURT or KARNATAKA H
lG|-4 COHRT or KARNATAKA HI
,- .A GH coum o|= KARNATAKA meg
COURT or Kmm
ATAKA men COURT or: KARNATAKA man
IN THE HXGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
cmcvrr BENCHAT GULBARGA ~ A
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF NOVEMEfl { * ' Q
Bmvomg
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JABDUL. « % AI k
WRIT PEr1T1oN%;i\r0.12s6s,liar," __
Reptcl By its Chiet'«Law"
Petitioner.
3:1 Shivmkggnér S} Bédawadag', Adv.)
A &g ;
%WwmmM%;
' , Sic I\?_Ius'ta'I.._'3x'Sab,
Ages! 56 years,
N(:,2A-2-92, Androon Khilla,
Respondent.
-… .,.. m…W. .,w_um. LII” mu-.~m.nm :-mm c.-uuxr or KARNATAKA HiGH comm OF KARNATAKA HiGi-! couar or KARNATAKA HIGH
% .
W.P.N0.1 21 77/2005
Between:
Road ‘Tit C%ion,
Raichur Division,
Raichur,
By its Divisional Controller,
Reptd. By its Chief Law Officer.
(By Sri Slnivalaxmar s. ' % « _ And: S/0 " V Aged aVbout.45'3Iear§,i:;_ ~ SirawarPost, M -4 ' Raiohur District. ' (By S:;..P._ vifas Ami)» H/.P.N0.12090/7005 T 'Raicthur Division, . Rggchm,
». gay its Divisional Corxtmiier,
Reptd. By1’tsChiefLawOfiieer.
(By Sri Shivaknmar S. Badawadagi, Adv.)
. Respondent.
. . .. Petitioner.
E
vs nu-nu no-nu-un.r-I I II\.’n I \.-\I\Jl\l \ll’ I\r\l\lV.f’iII”‘\l’\I’\ nu.-.vrI LLVUKI U!’ i
and when the bus was stopped near the Bank
waiting for the Security Guard and the
alighted from the bus with the cash tx11nI_<._.g.5,:0.iI:1"g.:t0<–A
the bank and thereby you in e:A'ne.gfi.gent 'V
leading to the robbery of the '
The Security Guard was with a eeee, which is
as under: A t 3 A Z
"Yeiz'_I?i%tcl4 the the depot on
23.1i5,:9é;:.tQ§'vte§i:itteii£:e.'ef–tt2e eeieent to the Bank and
eiatt"ti:-aetA::fi?et1 the uniform and
failed :5 me also did not protest when
the robbefe._etta,c1§ed and thereby failed to
take Adiligentébeteges te.e'prevei1t.t11e robbery and acted in
– _ e..;-esult of which the Corporation
» f§fi101jIii.,t)f__lakhS came to be robbed.”
Sirnt_Iarlyi was served with 3 charge sheet, which
‘ ‘ ” ” -fiéi’ ‘under: a
-u -u-aquariu-
23.12.96 you committed serious irregularity in
handing over the cash trunk to the Attender to carry it
to the bank and so also, you failed to raise any voice to
attract the public when the robbers attacked the
Atiender and robbed the cash trunk and thereby acted
in negligent manner resulting in the robher3}V:”‘of~….,
Corporation amount ofRs.2.4 lakhs.” ”
5. The charges were proved
basis of which the Corporation “the >
service. This dismissal gave and the
respondents filed app1icat?.ons’_V:h 1(r(4eA) of the
Industrial Disputes Act The Corporation
relied upon ‘ the respondents
and the enquiry confileted by
the validity of the enquiry. The
Labour Cant not fair and proper. The
parties were” given to lead their evidence in regard to
alieged against them. On consideration of the
i parties, the Labour Court held that the
V V eharges were v–:iot’p:roved. Consequently, the Labour Court directed
W the respondents to the post held by them with fizll
continuity of service and all other consequential
s n _ ‘
HIGH LUUKT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNIWAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGH C
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
aIr-II\I1l-\I.l’ll!fl”’I : lI\lI I \–\.JlJl\I LII’ i\P\l§I’I-|l.F\I\l”\ I”fl\3I””I LQUKE U!’ Q
7. Learned Counsel for the ” .
contend that the Labour Court was not»rj1.!s_tifA:iecii the 2
charges have not been proved. It is
iet in evidence of one ‘Vigilanceiei
Officer working with ihe’re1evei1t point of
time. The respoaadexiteiieve fizeir evidence, and
documents hauvejibeen It is argued ma:
without in its proper
that the charges have not
been iproveéd. “fie argued that the Labour Court was
not justiiiefi wagw. It is suhmittw that ajter
of . dieeripihzary authority, the respondents were
‘ service and pursuant to an interim order passed by
H were reinstatw subject to the result of the writ
ffherefore, the Labour Court could not have awarded full
2 ~ weges.
8. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the
respondents sought to justify the impugned award of the Labour
Court. Itis arguedthatinsoferasthe Attenderis oomemed, the
in
C
back wages with continuity of service and all other
benefits.
9. I have careifizlly “the
learned Counsel at the Bar znaietielevépieced
record
10. The ehazfges have been
culled out authority
has and the respondents
were __ Eiowever, the Labour Conn found
that the the respondents was not
fair and pgjppen ‘I11erefoffe,v’theV:parties were pennimt to lead their
En’ to substantiate the charges, the Security
as M.W1. He has stated that
Oi:mne<i1'a1eO""!y happening ofthe aforesaid incident, he has
spot end has recorded the statements ofthe respondents
o_s_~aléo:t1:e' driver ofthe bus belonging to the Corporation in which
O had travelled from the office oftlme Corporation to
Bank in questioo. He has 1101 reoordfi the statements of any
mu:-I QUURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH QGLJRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C
other person, who had witnessed the incident. Admittedly, he was
$2
I§\.e'I
, \.a\JlJ!\l ….- "….»…..m.\… near': i..w;a. Ur mm.-amm mt.-m uuuau or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HEGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH ca
not an eye witness to the incident. The
respondents were marked in evidence.
11. The allegatiom against the he
from the bus with the cash 1,,’ »r.,t:l§riithcuil’w:*¥’lil*’e%l ‘seguny
guard and the cashier. ‘I’h”e gaid feunil tdbeliaseless by
the Labour Court. It is there is an attack
by culprits unarmed and
untrained to expect him to react in
the for the respondents in
the Security Guard is concerned,
the allegaiiiml is that not wearing the uniform or was not
;_’jIiOl-fling at the attention ofthe public. The
the said charge is that of M.W1. It is
MW1 has not smtad that the Security
. was uniform, he had stated that he had not carried
. 7 supplied and he failed to take the preventive measures
to follow the procedure. It is not suggested to the
Guard that he was not in uniform at the time of the
incident. It is also not suggested to him that though iathi was
supplied to him, he had not carried it, Therefore, the said allegation
it
.<.;;"m…g
%
made against the Security Guard is also haselsss.
charges levelled against the Cashier, the
produced any circular to the effect ii " ii
to be made by the Cashier by :g<:i1igit'o.
and he should personally hééndéi dc$i£§'£':g«–w¢i§u érf A
the box in which money is was
examined as w.w1. He lieginning, he used
to take Attender and of the amount
and the {log being hmvy. This
sugwtion Coming to the
O the Security Guard and the
Cashier any efforts to avoid when the
cuxprgs foximlibery, tm Corporation has relied on
. <ifM.W1. noticed above, M.Wi was not a witnew
Labour Court on proper appreciation of the
L matérial has recorded a finding of fact that the
T i' were not negligent. The said finding of fad is on the
A proper appreciation of the material on record, and there is
= zzoiaervexsity, illegality or irregularity in those fimiing. I am of the
T " iview that the said findings offad does not call for izlterference.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH_CIO_;URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF XARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATA
K»
s
12. The second question for consideration is
Labour Court is right in awarding am back wages? meet;
that the award of back wages is no longe; K ”
natural consequence of reinstatement.
formula can be laid down as to what ‘pitgtrnetlt ‘~ . L’
of entire back wages should be the facts
and circumstances of which has to
be taken into” service that the
employee the ttamre of service, mode
and employee has rendered a
eonsiderableivtypel-§9’d “services were wrongfully
termma1ed’ , he be panial back wages keeping
yiew tlf1atV.af’la.-is,__i¢»_g¢.€ and the qualification processed by
l:1e’;nay-got Alina position to get another employment. The
A _ Améreaua MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS
y Vs, RU1§HA}§f.SIl\TGH –. (2095) 5 sec 591, was considering the
‘ = of baek wages to a Workman under the Industrial Disputes
held as under:
..-…… ..,. !\I”\I\l’¢1″lIl”\_l\l’| nluri ..__…_o.u ur mmmnm mutt Luuiu or mmawm HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA men c
“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where
the Industrial Tribunal give: a finding that the
ll
2′
. -., ….. .. …1………….,.. .-….m coon. vr nnmwuui-\a\A r-ms:-1 cuum or KARNATAKA men COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH comer or KARNATAKA Hie:-Eé
l
ta. f
13
termination of service was in violation of Section: A’
of the Act, entire back wages should be
host of factors like the manner and iv
and appointment, i.e., \=;hethci’« ._
advertisement of the vacancy elf ;.l§vitillg
am the en3ploy1ilei1_t’excltanVg–e,V “of
appointment, namely,
wage, teznplyl-awn’ .91. any
special quazificaeginiljeecland the like
should be .weigl1ed”ai;’;d:’tve]a;ice;i a decision
of we wag¢s.mee:e the important
factote, lees tci’fii:ev’tel(ieaav’i1titc’considexa1iozi, is the
eétj§iice;–.:iwhicli had rendered
:\_With* the’*”e;ti;iloyei*._fiIf._the workman has rendered a
cc.2,1_sidei’ab_ ” Vlfiii “eervice and his services are
V e _ he may be awarded fiill or
~ ;§aaia.: keeping in View the fact that at his
_ tlie qualification possessed by him he may not
it – to get anoflzer employment. However,
the total length of service rendered by a
,. is very small, the award of back wages for
complete period, i.e., fiom the date of termination
till the date of the award, which our experience shows
is often quite large, would be Wholly
Another important factor, which requires to be taken
into consideration is the nature of employment. A
regular service of permanent character camiot be
compared to short or intermittent daily wage
K’.
1%». –
v-
employment though it may be for 240 days
ealendaryear.” ” ‘
In TALWARA coopzzeqnft/Eohhdelszoiir’
SOCIETY LTD. VS. SUSHIL V.E;’.![1}1,=1I?-.— ‘A112 A 8.
the Apex Court has held as under: M
“”11. Great of a reliefof 1t.iV»Vie”trite, is not
automatic’. ‘(is not automatic.
The their power
under Disputes Act, 1947
are 1eq=u;:¢a…;o..sna:;e. mm in a. situation of this
certain relevant factors as
for ~:_1ata.1te’oi’ service, the mode and manner
V. ‘vof~f6C!11i1Ill«’$VI11. whether the appointment had been
8 with the statutory rules so far as a
8 — Lmdertaking is coneemed etc., should be
9?
takei: :§.mb consideration ……………… ..
13. In this case, respondents were appointed to their
8 ‘gfes§;ective posts on 18.1.1982, 12.1.1981 and 6.5.1987 respectiveiy.
” is not the case of the Corpmatioa that earlier to the date of
man -uum ur mu-uunnn mun oupm ur mammmsn mun-s COURT or KARINEATAKA HEGH COURT op KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA men c
incident, they had committed any misconduct. The Labour Court
on proper apprwiation of the facts and circumstances of the case
11
C
“”‘”” V’ “”‘”‘”‘**M mun uuunu Ur mxmnznm I-HGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH co
.: URT or KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT or KARNATAKA
« .« HIGH 4:
ex
wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefzts»
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the ca§’e;–
LahourCourtwas rigzt in gaming full bad: wages. ”
ofservioe and otherconsequemial benefits
14. Inthe result, them is :19 meitjza
they are accordingly dismissed V _
‘ I udge
BMMl251l2GUr8 ”