Ashok S/O Hanumantraya Naikodi vs The Divisional Controller
2022 Latest Caselaw 3127 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

  WRIT PETITION NO.201480 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

ASHOK
S/O HANUMANTRAYA NAIKODI
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: NIL
R/O DHAVALAGI
TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. BIJAPUR
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. NITESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NWKRTC BIJAPUR DIVISION
BIJAPUR NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS NEKRTC,
BIJAPUR DIVISION
BIJAPUR
                                       ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD OF
THE LABOUR COURT AT BIJAPUR PASSED IN REF. NO.1/2011
DATED 17.08.2011 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER WITH FULL BACK WAGES,
                               2




CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS.


      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that he entered into

service of the respondent-Corporation on 03.11.1989 as an

Artisan and he was dismissed from service on 02.01.2006.

It is further stated that the petitioner was working at

Muddebihal Depot and his native is Dhavalagi, where his

family is residing. While he was returning from his work to

his native place, after completion of work, it is stated that

he came to know that his wife developed an illicit

relationship with a person of Dhavalagi village and after

noticing the same, he left the matrimonial home and

started staying separately. The family members have

settled the matter towards the maintenance of his wife and

child and as such he paid Rs.80,000/-. It is further stated

in the writ petition that even after the aforementioned

settlement, the wife of the petitioner has filed Criminal

Misc.No.116/2003 before the JMFC Basavana Bagewadi

and the same has caused impact on his health and as

such, he applied leave to take treatment. In the

meanwhile, the Depot Manager reported that the petitioner

was irregular and remained unauthorisedly absent and

pursuant to the same, articles of charges were issued to

the petitioner and same was replied by the petitioner. It is

further stated that the respondent-Corporation, not being

satisfied with the reply made by the petitioner, initiated

domestic enquiry against the petitioner and the Enquiry

Officer found him guilty and based on the same, the

service of the petitioner came to be terminated. The

appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate

Authority challenging the termination order came to be

dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner filed Reference No.1/2011 under

Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the

file of the Labour Court, Bijapur.

2. On service of notice, the respondent entered

appearance and filed detailed objections. The Labour

Court, based on the pleadings on record, framed issues for

its consideration. In order to prove the claim petition,

claimant was examined as WW.1 and has produced six

documents and same were marked as Exhibits W1 to W.6.

The management has examined its Officer as MW.1 and

produced 28 documents same were marked as Exhibits M1

to M.28. The Labour Court, after considering the material

on record, dismissed the Reference and being aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

3. I have heard, Sri P. Nitesh Kumar, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. A.M. Patil,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contended that the imposition of punishment by the

respondent Corporation is non-est as the respondent

Corporation did not have their own industrial employment

standing orders. He further contended that the reasons

assigned by the Labour Court is surrounded by conjectures

and surmises and accordingly, sought for interference of

this Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

respondent-Corporation sought to justify the order passed

by the Labour Court.

6. It is evident from the finding recorded by the

Labour Court that the petitioner was taken into service as

an Artisan on 03.11.1989 and the petitioner was dismissed

from service on 02.01.2006 on the ground of unauthorised

absence. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that

the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 12.08.2003

to 28.02.2004 without taking permission from the Depot

Manager as per Exhibit M2. Perusal of Exhibit M4 would

indicate that the petitioner admitted his unauthorised

absence on the ground that he has quarrel with his wife

and same has caused him mental torture and therefore,

he was unable to attend to his duties. The Labour Court,

after considering the material on record and taking into

account the defence taken by the petitioner with regard to

unauthorised absence from work, has rightly arrived at a

conclusion, particularly at paragraphs 20 and 21 of the

impugned judgment and the said finding recorded by the

Labour Court is just and proper, which does not call for

interference in this writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. It is not the case of the petitioner

that, rules of procedure was not followed by respondent

while conducting enquiry and therefore, I do not find

illegality in the impugned award made by the Labour

Court, taking into consideration the reasons assigned by

the petitioner for unauthorised absence is far from truth.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. The

order impugned dated 17.08.2011 in passed in reference

No.1/2011 by the Labour Court, Bijapur is confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR