E 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARHAEAKA AT BANGALd§EflIFu
DATED THIS THE 28"-DAT OF MAY, 205$ ;E"
EEPOPE I~W~
THE HON'ELE MR.JUSTICE S.§BDfiL NAZEER.; ""
WRIT PETITION NO.I2627 OP»2OO6"ILPESETOX"
BETWEEN:
NmwEwmTEmmwmm B' ,g
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ;
BELGAUM nIvIsION;q_ ''"-g_éag_ ,
EELOAUM, ET ITs";g V_ 3"' "-."""T"
OIVISIONAL cOMTEOLLER.;,", *'=' »
REPT BY ITS I _"; *»'f{pa ~I g
CHIEF EAw_OEEIOER=,_ .j_T »,W;;.. PETITIONER
{Ey su¢LE R'REfiUKAgUAbV;} '
AND: V
R$FIQ AEEEO KHAOAIEEESAIN MAHALOAR
EGEE ABOUT 49g¥EARS
RKAT AWATI QEEE:_
JAMKEAEDI,fEAGALEOT ... RESPONDENT
'fl__.(Ey 8;; s E EEEKANNAPPA, ADV.)
"<ETEIs EEIT PETITION IS EILEO UNDER ARTICLE
O°g2267_ANDf'227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
.}_PEEyINe "TO OUASH THE AWARD OT. 8.11.2005
If E »PEsEEO BY THE ADDL. LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, IN
'*-._ REEEEENOE No.54/2004 VIBE ANNEX.J.
THIS WRIT PETITIGN CQMING ON FOR
'?RELIMINRRY HEARING - B GROUP THIS BAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
O R D E R
The respondent had been workinqtfasapax
conductor with the North West Karnataka state7 ii
\4_ n
Road Transport Corporation {ford short =.thed~i
Corporation’}. He was serfied Qith a rderde
sheet alleging that, he phadtlfinauthorisedly
remained absent from doties pith effect from
l8.3.l994 to .29}o4.iéé§i@afiaf;o§wa§as. The
respondent denied:the_charge,h The charge was
proved in,theNdo§sstiosenoair§, on the basis
of :&hichl,the’adorporatiohpfiismissed him from
service as °perV the raider dated 3.10.1997.
This dismissal “giye_ rise to an industrial
disputeu _and,d the respondent filed an
zap application dander Section lO{4~A} %f the
vrilndustriallrbisputes Act in KID No.44/2001
:h§§§§ge-flp@ Labour Court. Hubli after a lapse
l7¥:§r;4Vyéa3s. The petitioner withdrew the said
2l’t._aspii¢ation on 6.1.2004 with liberty to raise
.7, a dispute under Section lO{l)€c) of the Act.
Accordingly, he has raised a dispute, which
is
K
W 3 –
was referred to the Labour Court, Huelitik
wherein it was numbered as Ref. No.54fO4@: ?fiet”u
Labour Court by its order dated 8;J1.?GQS eetedkx
aside the order’ of’ dismissal 7peeeedidbQ*_thenVVi
Corporation dated 3.lO.1997{“end directed the;
Corporation to reinstate the yetitioner back
to service within four Qgekgjfrafifififig date of
publication of t§e_ayaf§;% w$§¢ taeour Court
has furtherg”direotedn;nh§ticorooration to
withhold ,5 jnoreeents fat thew respondent and
grant oontinaitg of ségeigg; The Corporation
has challenoeq.tneiieaid” award in this writ
petition, i’V u”ar_, _____
iwérojufiafeffieard the learned Counsel for
“the partie5;,eo
i2f»3{‘.Leerned counsel for the Corporation
i”dgwoeld§oontend that the respondent had remained
id”-rabseet from duty unauthorisedly without
“= permission. He is chronic absentee.
Therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have
it
-4,
interfered with the order of punishment »
impesed by the Disciplinary aethority.—-.f:’ :t.:fi’é ”
further contended that though the reseendent t
was dismissed on 3.10.1997, “:’hei=A.A_has:»’r.ai~sed”–:a~._l’
dispute under section lO(4eBi of thé hit after
lapse of four years. o”fhereafterd”hed has
withdrawn the said eetitioh ahd has made an
application uhder Seetion iQt;l{of st the Act.
In the oireamstaneesr the Lehour Court was not
justified~inhsrantind=eontindity of service.
On the other hahda the learned counsel for the
respondent has.soudht to justify the impugned
.order:% F” t u¥a%@’
E .4.’Material on record clearly establishes
xt”that the respondent was absent from 18.3.1994
‘~3§t§~2o.o4.i994 and onwards. It is aiso evident
“that:i*i§93. The Labour Court. has held that the
enquiry conducted by the Corporation is fair
Kl
\
-5…
and proper. It is clear that respendent”#asg
chronic absentee. Though, the crdesswbfidju
dismissal vans passed an: 3.l0}l997fl admittediynfi
he has raised a dispute under sectiehri0i4?§?i”
of the Act on l4.5.2OOlVite;, afterae rages er
four years. This cogrt had grahted an interim
crder on 20.G9.fdG6d.ieeejeetis to the
reinstatement lef the igesfiendenti back into
service with efteet:rrdm_id£iO.2006 subject to
the result ct thexwrit eetition. it is only
thereatterj petifiehei; has joined the duty.
The deiey in rsisihd the dispute shouid have
mheen taken intc eccoent by the Labeur Court
rwhile,medifiyihq the order of the disciplinary
autherityphjin my View, the Labour Court was
7, not justified in grating continuity of service
=e’tc»the_petitioner.
‘S. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The erder passed by the Corporation
directing the reinstatement of the respondent
W:
…5..
C1,. .
back to service and withh0lding’_m§f *Vg’g
increments and denial of back wag@s= iS”‘
sustained. However, the Qrdef cf th@_I@boGr 7
Court granting continuity cf z$erviQe* frqmg
3.10.97 to 18.2.2006 is he;§fé*by své-t.– as.i_L:%ex’;’1.’WM”
Writ petition is dispdséfi éffiacééfdihgly.
No costs.
KW ME ' Y % ' EMS?