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 the order of punishment order pertains to an employee of BMTC which is a different Corporation. Hence, the order passed by a different corporation cannot be a basis to hold that the order of punishment is disproportionate.
Brief Facts:
The workman - C. Mohan Kumar was a Driver Cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 09.05.2012 to 07.09.2012. On the basis of the report submitted by the Depot Manager, he was issued with Articles of charge alleging his unauthorized absence. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. Though the workman was provided with sufficient opportunity to submit the documents in support of his contention regarding his alleged illness, after appearing for a preliminary inquiry he chose not to to participate in the inquiry subsequently.
The workman died on 19.11.2015. The legal representatives of the deceased workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Mysore in Reference No.49/2016. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. Hence, the parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide Award dated 21.05.2018 set aside the order of punishment and directed to withhold three increments with cumulative effect and directed the Corporation to pay all service benefits to the respondents except back wages including an order for consideration of providing an appointment on compassionate grounds. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition.
The Court noted that the issue revolves around the misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence. The Labour Court concluded that there is misconduct on the part of the workman, however, proceeded to set aside the order of punishment. This is incorrect.
The Court observed that the order of punishment order pertains to an employee of BMTC which is a different Corporation. Hence, the order passed by a different corporation cannot be a basis to hold that the order of punishment is disproportionate.
The Court said that the workman remained absent from duty on nineteen occasions. This was taken into consideration by evaluating the misconduct and imposing punishment on the workman. Therefore, the finding that the workman was not accorded an opportunity in respect of his past conduct is erroneous.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the award dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Labour Court, is quashed.
Case Title: KSRTC v C. Mohan Kumar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.41654 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. H. R. Renuka
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Mahesh R. Uppin
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
