H S Raghupathy vs The Management Of

                            -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                           PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                            AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

           WRIT APPEAL No.3684/2019 (L-RES)


BETWEEN:


H.S. RAGHUPATHY
S/O. H.S. SUBBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT D.NO.1274/1,
2ND CROSS, KRISHNAMURTHYPURA,
MYSURU - 570 004.                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:


THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. VIKRANT TYRES LTD.,
K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI,
MYSURU - 570 016.                         ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.N. MURTHY
ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES (THROUGH V/C))


       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 18/07/2018 IN W.P.NO.24106/2009 [L-RES]
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY
TO ALLOW WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT
AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER SUITABLE RELIEFS.
                                    -2-




      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                          JUDGMENT

The legality and correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 18/07/2018, passed in W.P.No.24106/2009 is questioned by the writ petitioner in this appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the appellant joined the services of the respondent/company on 07/05/1983. He was confirmed on 07/11/1984. While he was discharging his duties, on certain misconduct said to have been committed by him, he was placed under suspension on 10/09/1994. Later, on 20/09/1994, charge sheet was issued to him. After his reply was received, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations against him. On the conclusion of the domestic enquiry, by order dated 20/11/1995, the appellant was terminated from service. Being aggrieved, he sought a reference under Ref.No.131/2001 (Old Ref.No.22/1997) before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short). By award dated 27/03/2008, the Tribunal rejected the reference. Being -3- aggrieved, the appellant preferred W.P.No.24106/2009 before this Court. The learned single Judge, on considering the case of the appellant, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18/07/2018, holding that there was no merit in the petition and no ground to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Hence, this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel, Sri N.S.Bhat, for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Somashekar and perused the material on record.

4. Appellant's counsel made a three-fold submission: firstly, he submitted that the award of punishment is disproportionate to the charges and alleged misconduct against the appellant. He submitted that the allegations of misconduct against the appellant did not warrant termination of his services, even if for a moment it is assumed that the same were proved. Consequently, he submitted that this is a case of victimization and unfair labour practice. Also, the enquiry had not been conducted in accordance with law. Appellant's counsel next submitted that the impugned order of termination may be set aside and the appellant may be reinstated and since he -4- has attained the age of superannuation now, backwages may be paid to him by way of a monetary compensation.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the charge sheet was filed against him on six charges. The essence of the charges pertain to illegal gratification demanded by the appellant from the contractors who were dealing with the old tyres. It is not a single instance on the basis of which the charges were issued against the appellant. After an enquiry was held, the appellant was dismissed from service. The Industrial Tribunal, after considering the case of the appellant as well as the respondent/employer, rejected the Reference by holding that the enquiry was in accordance with law and also there was no merit in the Reference. Learned single Judge considered the contention of the appellant with regard to the so called victimization and stated that there was only a pleading to that effect and the same was not substantiated. There was no ground to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge or in the award made by the Industrial Tribunal.

6. We do not find any merit in the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE S*