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 in the absence of adjudication of the right of the respondent to recover the amount in question from the Corporation, the Labour Court could not have directed the Corporation to calculate and pay the wages in a proceeding under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act.
Brief Facts:
The respondent was working as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained unauthorizedly absent for duties from 14.04.2007 onwards and despite a call notice, he failed to report to duty and continued his unauthorized absence. Based upon the report of the Depot Manager, the disciplinary authority issued articles of charge and he did not reply to the same. An inquiry officer was appointed and a detailed inquiry was conducted. After conducting the inquiry under the C & D Regulations of the Corporation and by following the principles of natural justice, the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the respondent is guilty of charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and accepted the findings of the inquiry officer.
After a lapse of almost six years, the respondent moved an application under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the III Addl. Labour Court. The Labour Court vide order dated 12.08.2017 allowed the application in part and directed the Corporation to calculate and pay the salary to the applicant from 25.03.2009 to 17.12.2014 based on his last drawn salary. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition.
The Court noted that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service back in the year 2009 i.e., on 25.03.2009. He did not question the order of dismissal and it attained finality. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that the applicant has not furnished any material to come to a definite conclusion that he is entitled to Rs.11,34,888/- towards full salary from 25.03.2009 to 17.12.2014. The Labour Court also concluded that the applicant has not produced any salary slip or salary certificate to show his basic, D.A., and other allowances as of the date of his dismissal.
The Court observed that the Labour Court went ahead and directed the Corporation to calculate and pay the salary to the applicant from 25.03.2009 to 17.12.2014 which is incorrect. There is no basis to claim such an amount. The applicant has claimed that he is entitled to full wages. But it is relevant to note that there has been no adjudication. The Corporation has disputed the entitlement of the applicant to claim full wages for the aforesaid period. Therefore, in the absence of adjudication of the right of the respondent to recover the amount in question from the Corporation, the Labour Court could not have directed the Corporation to calculate and pay the wages in a proceeding under Section 33 C (2) of the I.D Act.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the order dated 12.08.2017 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru is quashed.
Case Title: The Chief Security & Vigilance Officer v Hamsagiri C. M.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.4343 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. B. L. Sanjeev
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Naveen Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
