The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs. The Court observed that despite giving sufficient opportunities to the workman, he did not produce any medical documents before the inquiry officer.
Brief Facts:
The workman P.K. Yogendra was appointed as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly from duty. The Depot Manager submitted a report about his unauthorized absence. He was issued with articles of charge to which he did not submit his reply. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service on the charge of proved misconduct on 08.12.2011.
The Corporation filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal, seeking approval of the order of dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Against the order of dismissal, the workman filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The Industrial Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 13.03.2018 dismissed the approval application filed by the Corporation. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition.
The Court noted that the issue revolves around the rejection of the approval application.
The Court observed that the Tribunal placed reliance on the Medical certificates furnished by the respondents to conclude that the workman is victimized. This reasoning is unsustainable. the order of punishment was passed back in the year 2011. The true copies of the Medical records were furnished. All the medical records are from the year 2012. Despite giving sufficient opportunities to the workman, he did not produce any medical documents before the inquiry officer. The medical documents furnished by the respondents are subsequent to the order of dismissal. Hence, the Tribunal could not have placed reliance on the medical records and rejected the approval application. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: KSRTC v P. K. Yogendra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.55328 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. H. R. Renuka
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. H. K. Komal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :