The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs. The Court observed that a finding recorded by the Tribunal or the Labour Court can be characterized as perverse only if it is shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence at all or is entirely opposed to the whole evidence adduced before it or no reasonable person could have come to the finding based on the evidence on the record.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of the Corporation in Mandya Depot. The Articles of Charge were issued to the petitioner alleging that he had resorted to strike on the 15th day of August 1997. He denied the charges. After a detailed inquiry, the inquiry officer found that the guilt was proved, and he was visited with an order of punishment on 02.11.2002 by withholding one ensuing annual increment permanently. It is said that an appeal was filed and the same came to be rejected. The petitioner raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide Award dated 03.07.2017 rejected the reference. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no fairness in holding the inquiry and that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the fairness of the domestic inquiry is erroneous. An attempt is made on behalf of the petitioner to contend that he did not participate in the strike and assuming for a while that there is participation, no untoward incident occurred on account of his participation. It is vehemently contended that the buses were operated as per the schedule and there was no economic loss to the Corporation. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the finding of the Tribunal on Domestic Inquiry is perverse.
The Court observed that there is a two-fold test of the perversity of a finding. The first test is that the finding is not supported by any legal evidence at all and the second is that based on the material on the record, no reasonable person could have arrived at the finding complained of. In each of these cases, the findings would be treated as perverse. A finding recorded by the Tribunal or the Labour Court can be characterized as perverse only if it is shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence at all or is entirely opposed to the whole evidence adduced before it or no reasonable person could have come to the finding based on the evidence on the record. It is, therefore, essential to bear in mind the difference between a finding that is not supported by any legal evidence and a finding that may appear to be not supported by sufficient evidence or may be based on inadequate or unsatisfactory evidence. A wrong finding is not necessarily a perverse finding, and a finding cannot be described to be perverse merely because it is possible to take a different view.
The Court said that imposing a punishment for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered with by the Industrial Tribunals. In the present case, the inquiry officer and the Industrial Tribunal taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct, held that the misconduct has been proved.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there are no grounds to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
Case Title: S. Madhusudhana v The Divisional Controller
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 56141 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S. B. Mukkannappa
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. H. R. Renuka
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
