IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. DATED THIS THE 20"! DAY OF OCTOBER * THE HON'BLE MR. JUsT1cE;'IRA'_1yi WRIT PETITION NO.15068 Oxézoos D _ BETWEEN SANTOSH V KAMATAR _ , . S/O. LATE SR1. VEERUPAX AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS V * R/AT POST R AKURAI~rIATI'I" TALUK NAVALGUND I DISTRICT: PETITIONER [BY SR1. V' &"r¢;A1:\%;;},;1 LAN KULKARNI, ADV} AND: 1 D A THE MA:\IAGEMEN'f'0:F*' NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KOF:PAL' DNISIOMKOPPAL ' REI1'3.BY"ITSA.I')IVISIONAL CONTROLLER. RESPONDENT V' VRETTTION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF'--.'1"TE~IE JOORSTITOTION OF 1ND}_A PRAYING TO QUASH ENDQRSEMENT DATED 8.9.08, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH" IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANN» - THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL.HB',ARING T'-N 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE F"OLLOWING :T l é :. L "'\ ORDER
Petitioner’s father. while working as a
respondent ~v-~ Corporation, was terrninated’-frorn. service
on 26-07-1999 for acts of: deaf it
unauthorised absence from _dutjf’for*.the froijn
094997 to 22-12-1997. order.:’w’hen:’;§ca11ed in
question in / Court,
Hubli, was confirmed 20-11-2002.
Petitioners filed calling in
question by order dated 2-8-
2o07, __ was allowed and the
order oiethe quashed with a direction to
reinstate the ._\_}Vorkrnan with continuity of service and
benefits, without backwages. That order
on the date of the order, the father
the ‘”i9etitioner was reported to be dead.
9 “I’i1.erea’fterwards, by order dated 29-11-2007 Annexure–
a learned Single Judge, quashed the award of the
it “Labour Court entitling the LRS of the deceased workmen
is
;=
L/
to benefits, including continuity of service–___ and
consequential benefits Without backwageeflE”-hféwhile
concluding, the learned Single Judge 0bserited.thu”ef H
“(3}- V .. ._
Taking into consideration A’ the ‘ V ” « . in
service rendered by t}:1_e=.dece’a’sed : _
the gravity of the’t’V~.._:ch_{:1rge”– iatnjd the
explanation, ._ caste where’ the
Labour Court V”e§;1e3fcised the
discretion undwer ‘ ::V::Se’ct.i;on of the
if ‘”ILabour Court,
withou–;ii_”thAe rnatterial on record,
indvrejecting the claim of
the de’ceé;Sed d –= pdevtitioner. ”
The __petitiv’c)r1er, claiming to have a right to
,A ‘compéissiorxate appointment, made a representation
Ar1nexure–“D” which when rejected by
., ‘”res.pon’dent, has presented this petition.
en:do1’é’ement dated 8-9-2008 Annexure-“E” of the
N
3. The contention of Sri. V.S. Naik, learned
counsel for the petitioner that the award C0I1fil’:1’l’1i1′:..1_.”i«f_%.”flA1€
order of dismissal when quashed entitling
representatives of the deceased ‘Wo-rkrn_en_.to’:.r;ontinuity ‘
of service, consequential benefits without”r.ei11stat.g§’n1e’Iit
and backwages, one of the~v..legal to and
appointment on coinVpassl’onate’VTgrounds;” cannot be
countenance-d. I saajrlh learned Single
Judge, in with the
finding of absence, but that
the as contrasted from a
case is held to be illegal and Void.
Thyis’; t.depl{)yingV”the jnrisdiction under Art.226 of the
«flvoristitutionvof India, (Sec.114 of the ID Act] the learned
.Singles;J’_Li_d§e””interfered with the award of the Labour
Co’urt*f: directed the LR’s to be entitled to
‘*consecjuentia3 benefits and continuity of service, in the
of the number of years of service rendered by the
it “deceased workman. In other words, the order of
M
termination of service which “was upheld by the Labour
Court was not set–aside as a consequeijic’e.VV”0f’»i.the
workman being exonerated or being foundWn:otjV’guiit.y V’
the misconduct. In this of *. the-3
petitioner cannot claim a right in tlaw for..”a.ppointin’ent*i.g
on compassionate grounds.’ a»
4. In the circuinsta_h~fi’gSe.:/ths’-..Qbseri}ation of the
Apex Court in Vs. K. P.
AGRAWAL 52 A;§ii§.1g app’osi’te::V is
iiii
_’ ._ – under Article 226 or
Sieettion industrial Disputes Act
g._(or a;fiy:Vo’therA”siriii1ar provision} is exercised
‘C-,’-surt to interfere with the
}L3A’v1ZiI1i’E’;V1″‘)L’i’I1’€1″l1L on the ground that it is
and the employee deserves a lesser
punishment, and a consequential direction
“isA’1issued for reinstatement, the Court is not
it holding that the employer was in the wrong
it or that the dismissal was illegai and invalid.
‘ .2007 AIR sew 1357
E
The Court is merely exercising its discretion
to award a lesser punishment. Till such
power is exercised, the dismissal is valid and
in force. When the punishment is reduced
by a Court as being excessive, there can«b;e«._.l_l’~._
either a direction for reinstatement 5 .;.
direction for a nominal
compensation. And if’-“r’ei’nstaten_1ejnt’._ iVs’-7: in
directed, it can be
prospectively from the ‘date V
substitution of punishment (in W-hitch’: event,
there is no V continiiityilj of.’ service)” or
retrospectively, from idatawhich the
Zpenaityii, of”7’fVter_rni;nation’Wwas imposed, (in
‘everityithe1:e””c_an be a consequential
direction “r¢i’aiing”‘_.»iio continuity of service}.
;’W7hat Vreq_uiresV’to be noted in cases where
firidiitig of rniscvonduct is affirmed and only
§’_11’_~§,§_;_imQ~4[2*1::;lv1’.-liShI’I11E31’1Jf is interfered with (as
coritigtsted from cases where termination is
h-elci*t”o be illegal or void} is that there is no
automatic reinstatement; and if
reinstatement is directed. it is not
automaticallv with retrospective effect from
the date of termination. Therefore, where
M
reinstatement is a consequence of imposition
of a lesser punishment, neither l:>ack~wages
nor continuity of service nor consequential
benefits, follow as a natural or necessary
consequence of such reinstatement.
cases where the misconduct is held
proved, and reinstatement is H_’itselfif.a4 ‘A
consequential benefit arising from
of a lesser punishment, award’ ii”
for the period When;-mhe en:.ol’oveee.’lri’asv: _not_:’§
worked, mav arnounitfilto re”w.ar’cling.’:’;:the
delinquent ernplovee” it lmlnishifig V the
emnlover for _ for the
‘ comrlnittedl lav the employee.
That Similarly, in such
cases,” evenllélvviiereficontinuity of service is
“‘directed,,shVould only be for purposes of
pensionarv/’retirement benefits, and not for
benefits like increments, promotions,
‘ ease ‘
(Emphasis Supplied)
‘A Having regard to the aforesaid principles, the
.’ ‘deceased father of the petitioner having not been
Wexonerated of the misconduct alleged, the petitioner
Jrk
cannot claim an appointment on compassionate ground,–‘”—-
Petition is accordingiy, rejected.
Sd/~
KS