The Divisional Controller vs Sharanappa S/O Hanumanappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 3337 Kant

                        1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
              KALABURAGI BENCH
  DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
                    BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
    WRIT PETITION No.84869/2011 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, KOPPAL DIVISION, KOPPAL
THROUGH IT'S, MANAGING DIRECTOR
SARIGE SADANA, MAIN ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 103.
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHARNAPPA S/O HANUMANAPPA
AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: NIL (EX-CONDUCTOR)
TC.NO.260, NEKRTC, KOPPAL
R/O: AMBEDKAR BHAVAN, ITAGI,
TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL-583 279.             ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE)
     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER,
QUASHING THE AWARD OF LABOUR COURT GULBARGA
DATED 03.03.2011 IN KID.NO.122 OF 2010 (ANNEXURE-
D).
     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                  2




                           ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner,

challenging the Judgment and Award of the Presiding

Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID.No.122/2010 dated

03.03.2011, in terms of which the Labour Court set-aside

the termination of the respondent and directed

reinstatement without back-wages, but with continuity of

service.

02. It was the case of the respondent that he was

employed by the petitioner as a conductor in the year

2005 against a permanent post. However, the petitioner

continued him as a Job Trainee Conductor. It is stated that

the period of training expired on 19.12.2007. None the

less, the respondent was continued in service. The

respondent claimed that the petitioner issued a show-

cause notice alleging that the respondent was absent from

duty for 45 days and therefore, called upon the respondent

to show-cause why action should not be initiated against

him. Later the respondent was called to the chamber of

the petitioner and he was terminated without providing

any opportunity.

03. The claim of the respondent was that he was a

workman for all practical purposes, but in order to avoid

the consequences of his retrenchment, he was continued

as a Job Trainee Conductor. He submitted that since he

was a regular employee, the petitioner ought to have

complied with the requirement of Section 25 (F) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further contended that

the termination of his service due to absence from duty for

45 days was harsh and deserved to be interfered with.

04. The Labour Court, based on the oral and

documentary evidence, held that no regular enquiry was

conducted before terminating the service of the

respondent. It held that the respondent was appointed in

the year 2005, but his name was deleted as per the order

dated 24.03.2010, which meant that the respondent was

in service for more than 04 years. The Labour Court

considered the effect of Regulation 12 of the KSRTC (C and

R) Regulations, 1992 and held that the respondent was

working beyond the period of probation and the petitioner

had not assigned any reason for extending the period of

probation beyond 02 years. Therefore, the Labour Court

held that removal of the respondent from the select list

was without conducting domestic enquiry and therefore

improper and thus directed reinstatement without back-

wages, but with continuity of service. It is this order which

is challenged in this writ petition.

05. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the respondent was a trainee conductor

and therefore was not a "workman" as defined under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, was not

entitled to any protection.

06. The learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that the respondent was continued in

employment beyond the period of probation and thereafter

was treated as a regular employee for all practical

purposes. He submitted that the termination of the

respondent was on the alleged ground that he had

remained absent for 45 days without prior permission or

by applying leave, which at any rate was harsh and

deserved to be interfered with.

07. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

08. Except the termination of the appointment of

the respondent as a trainee, the petitioner did not place

any material on record to establish that the respondent did

not satisfactorily complete the training period and that

respondent deserved to be continued as a trainee. It is

now well settled that an employer cannot terminate a

workman on his whims and fancies, but has to comply with

the due process of law as stipulated under Section 25 (F)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the same time, an

employer cannot continue a workman perpetually as a

"trainee". In the present case, since the respondent

entered service in the year 2005 and continued to work in

the year 2010, it cannot be said that the respondent was a

Trainee Conductor, but was a conductor on regular duty.

The petitioner has not placed any material to establish that

the respondent was indeed a trainee and was not entitled

to claim the benefit of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

09. In that view of the matter, it was incumbent on

the part of the petitioner to conduct a domestic enquiry

before initiating any disciplinary action against the

respondent. The Labour Court has rightly considered the

case and is justified in reinstating the respondent though

without back-wages, but with continuity of service.

In view of the above, this writ petition lacks merit

and is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ