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 question is not that of the rejection or sanction of the claim, but the furnishing of fake medical certificates in claiming the IOD facility.
Brief Facts:
The respondent is a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He submitted a representation claiming IOD (Injury on Duty) facility for the period from 12.03.2008 to 21.06.2008. The claim was referred to Security Investigation. The Security Officer submitted a report on 25.06.2008 stating that the claim made by the Conductor was not genuine. He was issued with Articles of Charge on 30.03.2010 alleging that he had claimed benefits of IOD (Injury on Duty) by producing fake documents and that he had also threatened the Officers that he would commit suicide.
A detailed inquiry was held by providing sufficient opportunity for the respondent to defend his case. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue with regard to the validity of the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court vide order dated 15.09.2016 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. Hence, parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated 10.03.2017 set aside the order of punishment and directed to reinstate the respondent. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition
The Court noted that the respondent was discharging his professional duties as a Conductor in the bus that belonged to the Corporation. He claimed IOD benefits for a period of 102 days on the ground that he had suffered injury on 29.02.2008.
The Cout observed that the Wound Certificate reflects that the injury suffered by the respondent was simple in nature. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by the Security Officer of the Corporation also established that the respondent had not taken any treatment in the Government Hospital as claimed by him. Hence, the Labour Court ought to have been more careful while placing reliance on the medical certificates.
The Court said that the Labour Court while giving a finding concluded that the IOD claim was not sanctioned and hence respondent has not committed any misconduct. This finding is incorrect. The question is not that of the rejection or sanction of the claim, but the furnishing of fake medical certificates in claiming the IOD facility. It is not in dispute that the respondent made a representation and claimed the IOD facility. Rejection or sanction is not the criteria in deciding the question of misconduct. What is required to be considered is whether the claim made by the respondent was genuine.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Award dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Addl. Labour Court, is quashed.
Case Title: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v Thimmaiah
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.38407 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. H. R. Renuka
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Thippeswamy
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
