.1-
in THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE saw DAY OF '$EP'FEMB£3;~2,: 'éoea J ' x
BEFORE' A ' %
THE HON'13LE MR.JUS?1C§
WRIT PETITION
BETWEEN V % 'V %
THE DIViSlO1\EAL. CON'I'R{}£.I;.ER _
KARNATAKA _S'I'AfI'_E RQAB " V:
TRANSPORT e:;0r§§>Eom*10N
KOLAR DI'JIs1QN;'-:<Q_mRj}--~~.__ ' _
REP. BY 1'r9.,.c:mmr LMV GFFICER
c:EN'rRAL~QTFi?ICE'.i;:.; :<..s<..12;*:".c.' Ki-1;" ROAD
DOUBLE Roma, SHANTHENAGAR
BANGFaLGRE~56Q'O2?. _ _
" " ' . PEPITIONER
(By. M/Ls \}i':.-:\§;(A;~:}xT1¥x Aésocurras )
e:~*.§:§_:';»; }mJA'NAEiPA
S/'Q % «HA?! 1;? MANTHAPPA
AGED A130m* 48 YEAS
R/C' K€)LA'FHUR AT R0.
HOSAKCBTE TALUK
BA§\fl':rALORE RURAL DISTRICT
RESPONDENT
;§By Sri: H ANJANAPPA – RESPDT SD )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AR”I’i(3LES 226
AND 227 OF’ THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT. 20.7.2006
PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT,
.2-
BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.45/2001 UNDER ANN£aXLi’f€E”‘»D
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION I4’1LED;~’~~’–B3*1’I_am
RESPONDENT THEREBY DIRECTED THE .-A4″F*ET£fVI’i(3’PEfEf€
eoapommon TO REINSTATE THE RESPQNIK?-.NT..TO :~ne._
ORIGINAL mgr WYFH C.ONTIN{_1ITY_ OF’ SERVfCE,_’_:AN’I_)
amaze CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFETS. ‘ 3 «
‘1’HiS WRIT PETITION e::)_M1N€;«. cm FeR,réR’ELiMINA’.Rf”VV _
HEARING (I-3~(3~ROUP) THISDAY, ‘me comm’ THE’-
FOLLOWING: ‘ &
The petitioner .AA_’.:V;ee;3ondent as a
conductor governed by the
Karnataka; Corporation Service
[Condtvzvct __ __ –Regu1atio:;1s 1.971, for short
‘fleguiatiutts’, dsdbmission of a return of assete
andgeiizebifities members of his family, in the
t foitndddpteaeviibed, ftittxishing full particulars, in compliance
It appears that the petfdoner received a
centplamt the non-disclosure of the movable and
immo$*a}§ie properties acquired by the respondent and his
members, leading to the issue of an Articles of
V’ efiharges. AI1nex’Lu”e~A., charging the respondent for the act of
misconduct of nozbooysapliaxxce of Regulation. 14{1){c). In the
disciplinary proceedings, the respondent admitted the fact of
M
..3..
having not oouaplied with the Regulation 14_{
submitolng a return of the assets of * it
meznhers, on the premise the.u_mova.b1eS-
refrigerator, a mixi, and the.e’i;o::moVabie >
site were gifts which his Wife from at the
time of marina’ ge and thewaa ootieware that
he was required to submit ofiieer, on
the basis of the change
proved. ihaving regard to the
material on “the of the respondent, held
the and by onder dt. 5.1.2001
dismissed – from service. The respondent
A_ raisea 2;;1duis”e;a:i_i;i:spu:e by filing a claim petition under
~Seo~ti.on.V_v1Q(4-{A} of the industrial Disputes Act 1947, for short
.. Presiding Oficer, II Add1.La’£3oour Court,
— Bauigaioife, for short ‘Labour Court’, which was numbered as
it it .i:i:[‘,.e».e1’4~_io.4ii1¥S/()1, whence the petitioner arraigned as the second
xesistecl the claim by filing oounter. The Labour
in the premise of the pleadings of charges, framed
three issues, recorflecl the depositions of MW–1 the witness
M
-4-
for the petitioner, marked documents M1 to M15.
respondent did not enter the Witness box. The _
by order (it. 20.7.2006 answered in the ‘V
issue regarding the validity of the
thereafter having regard to t3;v.e_ mate–rie1.on held: ~’
the petitioner having not issuetie»e:i”;’::;xoi:iceto_the~Vree:gonc1ent to
submit the retum. as. the mere
zxon-ciiselosure of the it i:;si,§IIt_€i_aIabie properbiee
beloitging to members, ciid not
warrar1tt'”a’A;}tzr1isVi’1:fiiieIit~.of from eerviee, in other
wordeat’ shockingly disproportionate to
the of mieetorzttiuet and accordingly by award cit.
V. «_ Arfiextlrcrvfl, allowed the reference in part
‘ d1’r::etedK ._ petitioner to reinstate the workman with
H oiA’tr:=.eVervice but however impose the penalty of
two annuai increments and denied baekwages,
iieztce this writ petition.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contends that that in the light of the admiasion on the part
of the respondent that he did not disclose the particulars of
M
-5-
the movable and immovable properties acq1flmd§’_:i5§f
his family members, there was no we r
court to interfere with the quantum}; of:p1t1§tieh1rrei1t.” At
3. Having heard the leamtt V
perused the pleadinge end exae1i:1ei;l.,_tI1\:~?1*der,irnpugned,
what is discernable against the
respondent-workzeerr §vaS’.–ti%tev”ae:t__ot;’.Irort¥et.ieeiosure of the
particulare properties held by
him Ellie Vrequired by Regulation
14(i)(et of __ Though this lapse was admitted
by the the absence of a charge that
the »s3;eqt1isit:§o:1Aof inovables anti immovable properties, were
. V. known. eource of income, and faiiuze
to, material constituting subetantial iegel
evigtence .ot”:t1ie fact of acquisition of the said properties from
out ofvtthe revenues of the Corporation, justifiably, the
A C” court considered the question of proportionality of
the pmrishreent. It. is not in dispute that the Labour court,
‘in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, ie
empowered to interfere with the quantum of punishment it is
M
..6..
is shockingly dispmportionatc to the proxifééi ‘ ._<;§fi'
misconduct held proved.
4. Having regard to the natizre
supra, in my opinion, no t,9x_é’c’:;ption”‘can’ bé~.:étkéfi”‘tb the”
interference by the Labour ‘with .’thcv..Aq3,1$:ntum of
punishment.
The writ pm’_tion.i;s;”‘w~£§h¢ut:JV%»x:;ezit.«V§§1d is, accordingly
zejected.