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 Tribunal ought to have given one more opportunity for the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the case.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with Articles of Charge alleging that on 25.06.2001, while he was on duty in the bus bearing No. F 756 was playing on the route from Somarpet to Mysore, the bus was checked at Mariya Nagar and it was found that out of fifty-one passengers, the petitioner had neither issued tickets nor collected fare in respect of seventeen passengers, the fare of Rs.3/- each traveling from Banavar to Mariya Nagar and thereby committed a misconduct. He came under disciplinary proceedings and he was visited with an order of punishment withholding five annual increments permanently. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal.
The Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2012 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The Tribunal took note of the absence of the parties and on the basis of the records, adjudicated the dispute, condoned the delay, and rejected the reference vide Award dated 22.10.2012. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Tribunal has held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The matter was posted for evidence on the merits of the case. However, the Corporation and the workman failed to adduce evidence on the merits of the case. Hence, she submitted that an opportunity may be accorded to the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the case.
The Court noted that the Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2012 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The case was posted for evidence of the Corporation but, none appeared on behalf of the Corporation to lead evidence on the merits of the case.
The Court observed that the Tribunal ought to have given one more opportunity for the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the case. However, it went ahead and adjudicated the dispute on the material evidence that was placed on record and rejected the reference. This is incorrect. The Court said that once the domestic inquiry is held as not fair and proper, sufficient and reasonable opportunity should be accorded to the parties to lead evidence on the merits of the case.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Court deems it proper to set-aside the Award holding that the Tribunal should accord an opportunity for the petitioner and the respondent to lead evidence on the merits of the case.
Case Title: M. Paramesh v The Divisional Controller
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 26557 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sundaresh H.C.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. H. R. Renuka
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
