IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED Tms THE 14%! DAY OF DECEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE " O' V
WRIT PETITION NO. 35776 :'OF:;'2G {)S§'{L¥I§$l§':'5'Cj.
BETWEEN
1 BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CO.RP.QRATION,-- OFFICES
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAOAR. "
BANGALORE. A
2 THE CH1E.EfrRAE?1r1C MANAGESRV _
AND DISC1';?'L1_NARY AUTHORI'fY '
BM"IY.3, C_E3N"i'RAL 'O;-tF1~CE'S
K H ROADLSHA NTHINAGAR :§.
THE PEf_1'I'1'{OI*€ERS " ARE REP._B'Y
THE CHIEF' LAW'=OFFIC_ER "
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES'
SHANTHINAGAR; BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
' V' -{«BvY'~--SaRi»--;'*12 L..SANJfijEV, ADV)
'S/O. MUMYAPPA
AGE' 43"~YEARS. R/AT. N01 1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
*-.GAUTHAM COLONY
- " DGMLUR EXTENSION
BANGALORE M 7:. RESPONDENT
(BY SR1. SHANKARAPPA, ADV FOR C/R]
1/AL
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 81 227
OF' THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAY§NG TO QUASH
THE AWARD OF THE III ADDLLABOUR COURT.
BANGALORE DATED 1.6.2009 PASSED IN REF'.NO.53/05
PRODUCED AT ANNJ3; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRLHEARING.
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : 3
ORDER
In the process of regular. ,_recrt’iitnierit .the'”‘
petitioner -~ Road Transport Corporation,
applied for and obtained .vacant”.O’
post of driver, whence VAt.heA.”v-pi’oAduce’d—_a,:§Transfer
Certificate in proof of “edt1Cat_io:n3a1 Iqiiiaiification and Date
of inviizvhich he studied. That
Transfer subjected to verification by
the _Vigi1ance_:Sqnad*_of”the petitioner — Corporation, led
letter addressed to the Corporation by the School
Transfer certificate Was false and bogus.
This lette_r<ilrfiras the cause of action for the petitioner —
Corporation to initiate disciplinary proceedings leading
the issue of an Articles of Charge; hoiding of a
= .—domestic enquiry; a report of the Enquiry Officer and
irk
finally an order dated 23~08~2004 terminating the
respondent's service.
2. That order when subject matter of concili.ati_on
proceedings before the Conciliation
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (fory_sho:tll’Ac:tj.lled’_’to»r.;3’l”
failure report followed by any order :l’l_Stja’:.e.
Government referring the’-v..pindu’strial for’-V
adjudication before . the ‘Labour Court.
Eangalore, registered2005, whence
the petitionerfil on _:enjte_reld appearance and
resisted of the..vworl_'{man by filing Statement of
objections: . ‘Before Jltabour Court, issues were
fran;1ed,.. of the preliminary issue regarding the
the domestic enquiry was answered in the
words, holding that the enquiry was
proper and thereafter the parties were
ext.endled an opportunity to adduce evidence on the
of the material allegation that the Transfer
MK
Certificate was false and bogus. The petitioner —
Corporation, did not adduce the evidence of the
Principal of the School who is said to have issued» the
letter stating that the Transfer Certificate
the absence of substantial legal evidenceolf.:tli§3.:facti’
issue, and credible evidence, 2
award dated 1-6-2009 gAnne>4..”B”, a:,iawaa
reference, directed the respondent’s ereinlstatement
without backwages :.g’oln’tinuitytltA service.
Hence this writVpetition._:f’ A
l3hpea.r:d”~..,_th.e,’ learned counsel for the
petitionlerll and the award impugned,
indisputably,” credible evidence in the form of statement
of_pttl1ev.tl’principal of the school, was not adduced before
by the petitioner in support of the
material. ” allegation that the Transfer Certificate
produced by the respondent was false and bogus. This
— more and ample for the Labour Court to conclude
trk
that there was no worth while material on record to
sustain the charge against the respondent. In my
considered opinion, the award impugned cannot be
found fault with so as to call for interferenee:’=tind’er
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition is without merit-~a1j;d3Ls’ acmtatng;g,:,’
rejected.