The Mysore Paper Mills Limited vs G Manjunatha on 15 July, 2008

W. . o. 6 C W
W.P'.No. 19387(L'{)05
III' THE HIGH COURT OF KARICATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1513 DAY OF JULY 2008

BEFORE

THE Horrnm MR..ms'r1cE n.e.nAuma;~~~ " " %' V

E E,P,No. 12226121 :
BETWEEK:

THE MYSORE PAPER MILLS:{{I'D. 

SUGAR F'AC'I'ORY --.  --

PAPER TOWN POST _
BHAI)RAVA'I'HI~577 302    ,.  ..
SHIBI1OGADiS'i'R1C.'.'I'_'V'    _  -AFETITIONER

(BY. 3321'  F§3R" 3:21: M.R.C. RAVI,
:.:ADvocATE§.;. * -

AND:

SR1 G.M.ANJUNf&TIj§Aw _  _
s/0 P,C%ANGADHARx%,NAIDU

 " 'a~..c.NQ.3o257  ---------- --~
 FIRESERV£QE_I)fi;_PARTMENT
'msogs PAPE':-R~.MiLLS LTD.

Rf-O D.NO;-10,146 {PAPER TOWN

 V BHar;>reAvATH;;3  ..RE8PONDE!l"l'

haaf Sm; 'SHEELA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE.)

 ' Lyggpg a,1§3s7moo5 :
 shamans:

%  f 'SR_l..{"3,MANJUNATHA
 as/0 SR1 RGANGADHLAR NAIDU
~  «AGE: 43 YEARS

EP. NO.30257
FIRE SERVICE DEPARTMENT



 v  _ A   peiitions by the employer and the

.  A
 ,_22.  by the Labour 001111;, Mangalore, in
 By the impugned award, the Labour

V   allowed the petition filed by the workman
V .   Section 1(}(4-A) of the Industrial Disputcs Act,
 as amended in Karnataka ('the Act') by setting

W.P.No. Lgmzgmg C[W
W.P.No. 1938712005
M.P.M.LIMI'I'ED

PRESENTL-Y RESIDING AT LlG--II

103, 2!» STAGE, KHB GOPALA
snmoea ..wrrr:osxnn --.___

(BY SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE.)
AND:

THE MYSORE PAPER MILLS LIMITED
SUGAR FACTORY

PAPER TOWN PCS"?

BHADRAVATHI

BY ETS GENERAL MANAGER
SHIMOGA DIS'l'RiC'I'   " ._ V _    '
SI-IIMOGA   ..R~x;s1=axmgu'r

(BY SR1 RAMACHANDRAN F0ré"s'i§:' jg.-:V;'R..c.RA\?1;"' 
ADVOCATES. = " 2   

THESE Wm' 1?E*rmo.Ns, ARE..F;LED*.uN«DER ARTICLES
226 85 227 OF THE <;oNs;'1'1'rm'10Is:'*0F. INDL5 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD" nmzi-L1'<)-200.; "1v1r_.w§. ANNEXURE-C
(PRODUCED us; w;R_m. .1-'.2996,{2.?a'1!O2}.."  V .

THEQE -PETiT'i&)N_$ '~CG!§§fNG ON FQR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE comm MADE THE' 1§f:;L1;3wING:

  ._j.O~--li'3§':ER

 against the award dated

aside the order dated 31.10.1997 passed by the

M

 



W.E.flQ.1222§(2QQ2 Clfl
W. Rfio. 19387 gg@§
employer -- The Mysore Paper Mills Ltd dismissing the

worlman fiom selvtiee. Further, the Labour Court has

directed reinstatement of the workman with 

of service but without backwages and has   

to bring down. the workman to thelowest "   

pay. The Labour Court has 

increments to the Worklnan   
2. I have heard the  for  poetics
and perused the   by the
Labour Court. 'V _";I'he  to a

  _ the allegation that on

08.1 1. 1996;   to receive the iransfer

_ Vordet' ~gA]%du»a.nsfer:+;z§g from the Fire Fighting

 the Town Department, he abused his

sdpefior  namely, Radhakzrishna in filthy

 é  z  also physically assaulted him resulting

'    injduxfies to him. After enquiry, it was found that the

 relating to the physical assault was proved,

 resulted in his dismissal from the service by

order dated 31.10.1997. Being aggrieved by the order

 



flLE2. 
W.P.No. zgasvgfis
of dismissal, the worm.-an, filed a petition under

Section 10(4-A) of the Act before the Labour 

resulting in the award impugned herein.

The Labour Collft, on consideraiziolfif :"°f:':  

matter, has found that the do1nesjr.ic"m1qui;i;§  

fair and proper. It is "  

workman had conceded to  of.flaej'vdos::eeStie
enquiry insofar as it  a
reconsideration of the   Court has
held that the    assault by

the wo';f_k1naI1.. V "on. ofiioer namely,

Radhalqisfmewae  however modified the

4_.  in  stated above.

  'It._ to refer to the followmg discussion

 ma£}e ""by Court at paras 11 & 12 of the

  . »_ _  

   '11. Radhaicrislma in his deposition has
 '§clear£y stated that on that day cg'ter recewmg' '
 the nmfaommmmm¢ 

 
 

Bwy

 



 '   .....   his .1 ' per
   M15, the extmgt of the
  and wound certificate of

  ' t rassion the ' are

 
W.P.No. 1938712085
neck with the right hand forciflg and accused

 bo . hhehas

 

presence of petitioner at the spot, on  
Then what was the reasonfor   'V _
tea falsehood against the  = A 

no answer. It is  
(2.15 that before   
nothing wrong, in this    k
' V  da, the

 

12' 15!i"'~?;{§§y ievertt.'  

  else stated that,
on %   assaulted and
caused    Though he
    d at length nothing has

 clearly estggztsttes that there

 

'1"ha1meattsRadhakrsihna tat'ned"'

 

HowRadhaJcrishnasustat'ned"' isnot

\<\r~/

 

 



   of dismissal :3

_   mud also Order him to be brought
 X  in the time scale, I think that wiil
   ends of justice, instead of a dismissal

W.F'.Ng. 1938'7[2005
reasoning of the Labour Court in modifying t.l}e

punishment imposed by the employer on the  _

14. The pleadings of the pwfies ff?  _
extracted supra. Thepetitioner  a  "'1: ' _ 
He has been transferredfrom  
certain acts of    
petitioner was 
Depanment to the     he get
wild and assaulted He    of
the man.   a mis-
conduct  not ':_:.'%tg'§zL.-e   very
senmszy     of
dismissal.     the
oarrier of the  are of the
petitioner and  femag  Hence, the
punishmentgis too  In ihefit of eager, in
thg=7'_fg.("ofVeir:otiéin,   assaulted the
 served the transfer

 harsh I deny the badcwages and

~ _ a ' ' » A u o » ~ n . .

¥.No. 1933752005
workman by the employer. Having regard to the

gavity of the misconduct, in my opinion, the Labour

Court had erred in law in interfering with the 

punishment. Accordingly, I make the ;'}j--}: {T  

(:3 the impugned award datad22.10.2ee;; e

passed by the 

I.}i).A.No.33/97issetasideg7  e
(ii) the order dated 31.1e;1997%   
the employer-The  " Paper" 
Ltd., cziisxrzvis-é..i:".1gA   fiverkrnan-
uphel     .

Both me  stand disposed of in the

above te:r.ms, ' -

 .....