The Divisional Controller vs Sri Manikantan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5024 Kant

                          1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

           WRIT PETITION No.48665 OF 2018
                         C/W
       WRIT PETITION No.25764 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

IN WRIT PETITION NO.48665 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

MANIKANTAN
S/O ARUVASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPETE TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHEKAR C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
B.M.T.C.
SOUTH DIVISION,
K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

       THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 25.11.2017 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, IN REF.
NO.60/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION
AND ETC.
                           2




IN WRIT PETITION NO.25764 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
BMTC SOUTH DIVISION
K.H.ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
B.M.T.C.. CENTRAL OFFICES
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027
                                        ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)


AND:

SRI MANIKANTAN
S/O ARUVASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPETE TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 111
                                       ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)


       THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE III ADDL.
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU PERTAINING TO REF.
NO.60/2015, WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DTD:
25.11.2017 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.


       THESE   WRIT   PETITIONS     COMING   ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                  3




                               ORDER

Both these petitions arise out of the impugned

judgment and award dated 25.11.2017 passed in

Ref.No.60/2015 by the III Additional Labour Court,

Bengaluru (for short "the Labour Court"). The said

proceedings arose out of a claim petition filed by the

workman seeking setting aside the order of dismissal dated

03.09.2014 passed by the BMTC on the ground of

misconduct. After contest, the Labour Court proceeded to

pass the impugned judgment and award allowing the claim

petition in part in favour of the workman. As per the

impugned judgment and award, the Labour Court issued

the following directions:

(a) Directing reinstatement of the first party - workman into service with the second party - BMTC together with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

(b) Directing the second party -BMTC to pay 30% of the back wages to the first party - workman for the period from the date of dismissal dated 03.09.2014 till the date of reinstatement.

(c) Directing withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect.

2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

award insofar as it relates to non-grant of the entire back

wages and withholding of three annual increments with

cumulative effect, the workman has preferred

W.P.No.48665/2018. So also, the BMTC has preferred

W.P.No.25764/2018 challenging the impugned judgment

and award in so far as it relates to directing reinstatement

of the workman together with continuity of service and all

other consequential benefits and awarding 30% back

wages in favour of the workman.

3. Heard learned counsel for the BMTC and

learned counsel for the workman and perused the material

on record.

4. A perusal of the material on record including

the impugned judgment and award will indicate that having

regard to the specific assertion of the workman that he

remained absent on account his ill health coupled with the

pleadings and evidence on record, upon re-appreciation

and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of

the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and

award directing withholding of three annual increments with

cumulative effect and awarding 30% back wages from the

date of dismissal till date of reinstatement is not

proportionate to the nature of misconduct and

consequently, by balancing equities and in the interest of

justice, I deem it just and proper to allow both the petitions

and modify the impugned judgment and award by

confirming the direction for reinstatement together with

continuity of service and all consequential benefits but by

declining to award 30% back wages and setting aside the

direction of withholding three annual increments with

cumulative effect.

5. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Both these petitions are allowed-in-part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated

25.11.2017 passed in Ref.No.60/2015 by the

III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, is

hereby modified in the following terms:

(a) The impugned judgment and award

in so far as it directs reinstatement

of the workman, Sri. Manikantan

into service with the BMTC together

with continuity of service and all

consequential benefits is hereby

confirmed and the BMTC is

directed to reinstate the workman

within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

(b) The impugned judgment and award

in so far as it directs the

Management-BMTC to pay 30%

back wages from the date of

dismissal till the date of

reinstatement is hereby set aside.

(c) So also, the impugned judgment

and award insofar as it relates to

directing withholding of three

annual increments with cumulative

effect of the workman is hereby set

aside.

SD/-

JUDGE

Bmc