H S Raghupathy vs The Management Of
2021 Latest Caselaw 78 Kant

                            -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                           PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                            AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

           WRIT APPEAL No.3684/2019 (L-RES)


BETWEEN:


H.S. RAGHUPATHY
S/O. H.S. SUBBA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT D.NO.1274/1,
2ND CROSS, KRISHNAMURTHYPURA,
MYSURU - 570 004.                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:


THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. VIKRANT TYRES LTD.,
K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI,
MYSURU - 570 016.                         ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.N. MURTHY
ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES (THROUGH V/C))


       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 18/07/2018 IN W.P.NO.24106/2009 [L-RES]
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY
TO ALLOW WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT
AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER SUITABLE RELIEFS.
                                    -2-




      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                          JUDGMENT

The legality and correctness of the order of the

learned single Judge dated 18/07/2018, passed in

W.P.No.24106/2009 is questioned by the writ petitioner in

this appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the appellant

joined the services of the respondent/company on

07/05/1983. He was confirmed on 07/11/1984. While he

was discharging his duties, on certain misconduct said to

have been committed by him, he was placed under

suspension on 10/09/1994. Later, on 20/09/1994, charge

sheet was issued to him. After his reply was received, an

Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the

allegations against him. On the conclusion of the domestic

enquiry, by order dated 20/11/1995, the appellant was

terminated from service. Being aggrieved, he sought a

reference under Ref.No.131/2001 (Old Ref.No.22/1997)

before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru (hereinafter

referred to as "the Tribunal" for short). By award dated

27/03/2008, the Tribunal rejected the reference. Being

aggrieved, the appellant preferred W.P.No.24106/2009

before this Court. The learned single Judge, on

considering the case of the appellant, dismissed the writ

petition vide order dated 18/07/2018, holding that there

was no merit in the petition and no ground to interfere

with the award of the Labour Court. Hence, this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel, Sri N.S.Bhat,

for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent,

Sri Somashekar and perused the material on record.

4. Appellant's counsel made a three-fold

submission: firstly, he submitted that the award of

punishment is disproportionate to the charges and alleged

misconduct against the appellant. He submitted that the

allegations of misconduct against the appellant did not

warrant termination of his services, even if for a moment it

is assumed that the same were proved. Consequently, he

submitted that this is a case of victimization and unfair

labour practice. Also, the enquiry had not been conducted

in accordance with law. Appellant's counsel next

submitted that the impugned order of termination may be

set aside and the appellant may be reinstated and since he

has attained the age of superannuation now, backwages

may be paid to him by way of a monetary compensation.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant,

we find that the charge sheet was filed against him on six

charges. The essence of the charges pertain to illegal

gratification demanded by the appellant from the

contractors who were dealing with the old tyres. It is not a

single instance on the basis of which the charges were

issued against the appellant. After an enquiry was held,

the appellant was dismissed from service. The Industrial

Tribunal, after considering the case of the appellant as well

as the respondent/employer, rejected the Reference by

holding that the enquiry was in accordance with law and

also there was no merit in the Reference. Learned single

Judge considered the contention of the appellant with

regard to the so called victimization and stated that there

was only a pleading to that effect and the same was not

substantiated. There was no ground to interfere with the

award of the Industrial Tribunal. We do not find any

infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge or in the

award made by the Industrial Tribunal.

6. We do not find any merit in the appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

S*