_ g[)i£cCt0r'.... .....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24* DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009
BEFGRE H
THE HOINPBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.---ADI'
& '
BETWEEN:
Sri Bette Gowda,
S/0 Kaplm Gowda, A
Aged about 56 years, V _ '
Rfo Bettagowdana Qccldi, _' & _ , ._ .
Naxflyanapura Post, *
I{ana1capuraTa1_1Lk,~ 4' " " V .
Ramanagaxa Dii=strict;_. . ....PETI'I'1ONER in
____ H *1.;,_ V " ._ V' " WP No.3334}'2009
"L; " _ RESPONDENT111
V’ ” WP No.9931/2006
” 4′ Adv.)
A.Z.’§._12=.
Mysnm .Mm¢rals . Lsmited,
N039,’ ‘
Bange3d:¢–«.56a”_eo RESPONDENT in
WP No.3334~/ 2009
PEYTITIONER in
WP No.993 1/ 2005
(By Sriflhandxakanth R.Gou1ay, Adv.)
Petition No.3334[2GO9 is filed under Articles 226
22′? of the Constimfion of India, praying to; quash the
dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Central Government
vIndu9t:n’aI Tr*ibuno_l-Cunt:-Labour Court, Bangalore, in
C.R.No.53/2002 so far as it relates tum excluding the period from
1.1. 1995 to December 2001 and 6112.’.
‘pass met and proper punishment
of the offence, the Disciplinary Authority
has of punishment. He also submitted that, the
has not granted enough opportunity to the
v4′;;(§;;pondentvn1,anagement to adduce evidence. It is in this regard,
the ntanogement eouid not adduce any evidence.
absent for a period of 12 days and it is also not in dispute that,
T the Enauirv Gficer opined that’. a punishment of Withholding of
petitioner with backwages and consequential benefit excluding
the period between January 1995 to December 2001.
9. Sri ?adm,anaba Mahaie, learned
appeazing for the petitioner submitted that, when _
held to be bad in law, the managemerzitdnréiis’
evidence to prove the misconduct
has been led. In such the
for the Industrial ‘I’rib1ma.1_. wasc'”i.o aside« “t’he*’VEorder of
punishment and grant
10. Sri learned counsel
appearing for that, notice was
issued to before the Enquiry
Officer, hodwexdrer. had not chosen to appear.
Discipiinatfy A1gth.c;’;~;:y “has. to modify the findings of the
11. It s not in dispute that, the petitioner had remained
,w§»r§+r
findingsliuof Indzisaiai Tribunal, when the misconduct is not
profited;-i’1l:;e entitled for necessary benefit.
‘ifor 12 days. Nothing wrong in initiating the enquiry.
the management has proved or not, the workman can
it ‘ to be entitle for fill} backwages. Considering the evidence
on record and considezingthat from 1995 to 2001. admittedly
one increment is suifieient, however, the Disciplinary Authority
has passed an order of termination. The procedure prescribed is
required to be followed for passing a major penalty.
or termination order being a major penalty, it must’: the
by an enquiry. Findings of the on it
this point that. there is no enquiry hel駢a1L=.d it .’
the said alleged enquiry is 4: e§1y* ‘for’; the e e ”
management was to adduee pinve the
misconduct. Admittedly, hag, notfi adduced
evidence and provedthe ftlliere is no such
request alleged to the”lndustI’i,al Tribunal
for leading evidence V;1orV’1’l1e:ie~~.Viis-.. no stgoh contention raised in
the Writ Pa-eeoifi_’.i* ~ 4″
12. Manageineni not challenged the order on the
Validity enqti11″3:.:vIn such circumstances. looking into the
1 I’ 13.2 :zot:evcr_ it is found that. the workman had remained
the workman had approached the Wrong: forum for which he
c€’–*”,.»
cannot be compmsated by backwafi. in these etircmmtances, i
am of the opinion that, the Tribunal exercising the power umigr
Section 11A of the Indmtrial Disputes Act, has rightly
the appivialiate order, it does not call for i11t:&’§eIvc13.<';§.f:"'*ei"£:'}"1':'=%'j'J""a"'.*. "
the instance of the pettifioner or at; …thc'
managemmt. ' " " ' ' "
Accordingly, both the petitic>1’%.’$ and
arfip/__