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 present case, the inquiry officer and the Labour Court taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct, held that the misconduct has been proved.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of the Corporation in the Ballary Division in the year 1996. Upon satisfactory completion of the period of probation, his services were confirmed during the year 1998. The petitioner was transferred from Ballary Division to the Mangaluru Division during the year 2000. While he was working in the traffic section, he was placed under suspension pending inquiry on an allegation that while discharging duties as a Data Entry Operator in the Divisional Accounts Section and in particular Provident fund matters, he obtained provident fund advance amount from several employees and remitted the same to his personal bank account.
The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and charges were held to be proved. The Disciplinary authority passed an order on 26.07.2012 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the order of the Corporation, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court which held against the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the rejection of the claim petition is erroneous and unsustainable in law. He argued by saying that the Labour Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act, taking into account the length of service of sixteen years which was rendered by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Labour Court has failed to discharge its powers vested under Section 11A of the I.D. Act and erroneously rejected the application.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the question of exercising discretionary powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act does not warrant the facts and circumstances of the case. She argued by saying that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record, and held that the gravity of the misconduct was proved. Hence, the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the petition.
The Court noted that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and taking note of the gravity of the misconduct concluded that the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner is just and proper. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order of punishment.
The Cout observed that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, the scope of judicial review is limited. In the present case the inquiry officer and the Labour Court 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 the Writ Petition is devoid of merits.
Case Title: Sri B. T. Shivananda v The Management of KSRTC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.15729 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. V. S. Naik
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. H. R. Renuka
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
