.1- IN THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2003 BEFORE ¢ 4' 3 t. _ A . THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICE SUBHASI-"I '1§-.§I::"33'.ij:'/: " " CIW WRIT PE"I'I'I'iON No.:.1s9a1'2o(>g (LR, IN W.P. No.2o140/2007 BETWEEN: Bangalore Memnpolitan Transport Corporation K.H.Road, BANGALORE. - V V' By its CI:1ief'I'rafiic Managmv' . Rcpmscutcd by i't,5'*.._ "_' V_ 3» " f Ch1'¢fLaW Ofiiccig . I .. PETITIONER (By smt.H.R.éenfik2g?pA£i~¢,}«.. '5T_' .. V AND: _ _ 1 T B. Palani % S/(;. R. V' Aged about. 52 ycerfs," ' " »l'~§0.'?.'3'[ 543.0, __Ili R'oad_.,' " A III' Cxbéas, V§;nkc3.t_asWamy Gazjdfzzx, J.,;J;Nag3x,_ BANGAL0Ii:»E¢56jQ0~1s. .. RESPONDENT
(By SEEK. Adv.
Mjs. S’E’M’Ass0ciatcs, Advs.)
” “lfhis Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 6:. 227 of the
Constitigztion of India praying to quash the award made in {D
»_ _Tm*o”.V64/’2oo5 Dt.2′?.08.2()O7 (Annexu1’e~P) passed by the 111
vAdd§it:io11a1 Labour Court, Bangalore, etc.
IQ W.E. mg;,1§9§[2QQ§
BETWEEN:
I3. Paiani
S/0. R. Balaraman
Aged about 53 years,
No.73] 10, ill Main Road,
III Cross, Venkataswamy
Garde11, J.J.Nagar,
BANGALORE–56{) 018. ‘
{By Sri.K. Srinivasa, Adv.
M] s. STM Associates, Advs.}
AND:
The Chief Traflic Manager, _ .
Bangalore: Metmpolitan ”
Trarxsport Co1pQrai’imji., _ g –»
Central Offices, K.H5[Rc>_ad, _V
BANGALORE-360—%’2&.7. 3 ~ .. RESPONDENT
(By smmga. R; ~ 5
This Wm pefiziéig.’ is f1»cd under Articles 226 35 227 of the
Constitution of VI11r}..’1a playing to quash the impuged oxtier
Dt.O5,,.(?1.i£0O7 péasazed on the validity of the Domestic enquiry
‘ ‘wide AIiEae;»::N;~. And. award passed by the III Addl. Labour
Cotirt, Banigajdre, in I.1:).No.64/2005 Dt.27.08.2o0’7 placed at
‘Ani1cx¥S.'”‘–7£’d the petition. in so far as denial of the backwagcs
increments, etc.,.
“‘The.s§c’ Petitions coming on for Hearing ‘B’
jfifmup thisjday, the Court made the following:
S2_B_Q_E.B
both the Writ Petitions, an award datcd 27*” August
am in I.D.No.6~’~¥/2005 is called in question by both the
Management as well as the workman.
,w~’
-3-
2. W.P.No.20140/2007 is filed by the Corporation.
W.P.No. 159812008 is filed by the Workman.
3. The Corporation has questioned the awarcl
the setting aside of the order of punishment and
reinstate back into service whereas, tl1e”ivorlenian.;hnVs bquiestioned b T it
the order on preliminary issue and
continuity of service and consequential benefits:
4. By article of the “Corporation
alleged that, the worl@anVV_got._VtL’ii.eVl on the basis of
false Transfer to ‘o.p1eointment to the post
of I-ielmr-B the employment is in
violationilvof e3au.se-43 (9) of the Karnataka State Road
Transport Recruitment) Regulations, 1982.
his zeply dated 10.7.2003 denied the
_ an enquiry was held. Before the Enquiry
Ofiieei’; *3_veitr1esses were examined on behalf of the
‘Corporation. llflorkxnan also got himself examined. The Enqu1Iy’
on the evidence gave a finding that the charge is
Thereafier, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of
T The order of dismissal was called in question by the
i it x worlman before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was also
dismissed. Thereafter, the Workmazi raised a dispute under
-4-
Section 10(4~A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court
held that the enqxiixy is fair and proper and it is also held» that
charge is proved. However, on consideration of the
passed. by the Corporation and also on consideration
dismissal order is not based on unsnitahility
performance of the duties by
Corporation to reinstate the ..se;rvice;:l’
however, denied the backweges iheneifits.
6. Learned Counsel the Corporation
submitted that, in’ the it is specifically
mentioned produced the Transfer
Certifica.te’t’ohfla as ?l\”I£i.t1hu1*ay’s Sri Namperumal
High schoei. )mder§o;;p¢t;v.§§;es,E.” and the workman has replied
to the same. it However, reply. he has not stated that, he
‘seas in iithgmad school, but in turn, has only denied
the ~el1e–ged that. the xerox copy is produced and the
ozigizlhaleeiisv gnoduced. It is also submitted that, the
f;oIpo;re’1tion.AV MW~1 — Security Oficezr, who made the
* igéeseggeen and in support of the cause, clerk of the said school
I» examined as MW–~2, who has stated that, the register
T “nfiinber pertaining to the Workman mentioned in the Transfer
it Certificate does not belong to that school and does not pertain to
the petitioner. It is also submitted that, for the first time, the
Ga)’
.5-
workman produced Ex.Wi before the Labour Court showing that
he had studied in Government High School, Yeshwanthput upto
8th standard and this document was neither produced heto1_e~.the
Enquiry Oficer nor was referred to in the reply
charges or in the evidence of the workman. It is that,” 2
once the enquiry is heid as fair and the’:ou1fi’que_et§ofi
that, the Labour Court could coneidet’ as ;
findings of the Enquiry Gtficeu’ orig there is
victimization or unfair is etridence on
the perversity of the fmdiugst uo of victimization
and there is no e*¢ic;te:iee as to practice. The
Labour Court hot. Ex.W1. which was
produced for the the Labour Court. It is further
submitted that; has committed an error in
_looking the Vsaidiceniticate to find out the suitability of the
in the post. It is also submitted that,
Oficer or before the Appellate Authority,
‘ nowhere. the took a stand that, he studied in the
hi ” ‘:4A’£’:o’veI’u,ment Schoo}, Yeshwanthpur.
— ;?.’iiLea;’ned Counsel appearing for the Workman submitted
‘ ” as against the article of charges, reply was given and in the
‘deeply. he specificahy denied the alleged charge Even in the
evidence before the Enquixy Omcer. he specifically stated that.
13?’
-\
.5-
the documents produced by the Corporation are only xerox
copies and shoulct not have been relied by the Enqui1yh_Ofieer.
He also submitted that, the original dooument.$a..VV_:’a1_:e~ not
produced. He further submitted that, the is
marked in the evidence shows that the in»
Government High School, Yeshwanthpur: h’
is not looked into by the Labour . E~ie subitiittegi that,
Labour Court was not jusfified .er1qhi1Sjas fair and
proper. He submits no optforttmity before
the Enquixy Oficer nor the documents,
despite the Labour is fair and proper.
He further Vworkzman has admitted
that, he referred to in the article of
charges he document showing the school
in whieh the had studied is produced before the
as Ex.W}. In such circumstances. the Labour
in giving a finding that, the charge is
‘weebnot justified in holding that, the enquiry is fair
It is not in dispute that the worlmaan had replied to the
T of charges. It is also not in dispute that the Worlman had
‘4 A. not avaiied the opportunity given to him to engage a co–worker.
Fmm the proceedings before the Enquiry Oficer. it is clear that
2%’
/’
-7,
he had an opportunity to cross-examine the Management
witnesses. From Annexure-B, it is aiso clear that, on 2′?’L8,2003,
the copies of the documents produced by the Eweure
furnished to the workman. From the pxoceedingshof Z
Ofioer, it is clear that the wor1o:aet3iA”had ‘_ T.
participated in the pt-eeeettittge eee,%eeet : cros$eerta:niti:ec1T’t.he
wimesses and further has _theA.eviden_oe,_J
there is any jusfificafioo to the’ ‘vflndthg on the
pre1J’.1nin.ary issue by the .’i:Ls’~.Ve’,£:’:,,::”_h()*;::I_{V:o1Is.
9. The Latent is proved. Only
on the –oiIt%i1iif;stax1ces the Corporation has
_ in this case. a major
punishment teh impo$et1′,’–~ moulded the relief. While
moulding the”re_1iefi, Est eteetoeetee to Ex.W14, a Circular which
V’ «ease Worknnan is confirmed in the sexvice, he
and further obsezves that the nemova}
of was not on the ground of unsuitability or
“‘*§l!1sati’s£aoto:’V5I performance. It further observes that, the
Oficer has heid that the charge is pmved only on the
that, the Workman has stated that he has studied in
t h L eu-
ezen so 00 {Egg}
10. It is not in dispute that, once the enquixy is held fair
and proper, the Labour Court is required to the
documents and evidence produced before the for
the purpose of finding out the perversity or orithe
unfair labour practice. Even in case; _1e:ad V
flesh evidence, on opport1mity..shou:1d.hs.ire been
Corporation and in this case,i”foir’.t11ev. Wes
produced before the Lsbspur that, the
Corporation had no serious dispute as
regard to the It is case of
the was produced along
with the ,spp1iuosiioii;I;’:is cerfifieate and the workman has
aequir§\d7.44,’;h43\i- on the false certificate by
sup§1’essi11g”t]_;1e hefoie the authority.
.%..fiIi1 is also necessary to consider that the
“does not produce the original document. The
tion ‘ by the Corporation is that, enquiry’ is
rinitiateo’ removal of originals fmm. the file and further submits
xerox copies are maintain’ ed by the Corporation. Since
___”‘i:”the,;’e is dispute as regard to the correctness of the documents
‘4″V.u}iroduced by the Corporation and if the workman is able to
satisfy that the findings of the Enquiry Ofiicer based on these
documents are perverse, the Labour Court should consider the
(,..
-9-
same. If the Corporation wants to rely on those documents, it
can prove the some by producing additional evidence. ifcany. In
my opinion, the finding of the Labour Court having” that
the charge is proved and moulding the relief on of
suitabifity was not justified.
12. Since both the worlcman iéfeli
have questioned the findings of _Labo’._uf it
appropriate to remit the V_matterV_for” eoi1’sid.eA1’a?,ion Without
expressiiig any opinion oxi” fiie .disp%.1{fi”qi1e$4;:ion.
Aooording1y’,’:!:io’th Pefifigns partly allowed. The
award datedi’2’7*%*— “I[,D,No.64; 2005 is quashed.
Howeveezthc . issue is confirmed. The
Labour is »’to”:»ere~eonsider the enfixe matter in the
_ light oz:-:’ ithe.evide”n<:_e:1ed the parties and in case, the workman
"£9 he can seek permission before the Labour
fiioxpomtion is also at liberty to Eead such
i _evidence, '12eoessa1y. The Labour Court is directed to complete
" enqxiizzyiiias early as possible.
Sd/-E.
Iudge