The Divisional Controller vs Basavaraj S/O Mahamallappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 372 Kant

                           1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               KALABURAGI BENCH

   DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

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

    WRIT PETITION No.200969/2017 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N E K R T C, VIJAYPUR DIVN.,
ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYPUR
THROUGH ITS:
MANAGING DIRECTOR
NEKRTC, SARIGE SADANA
KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                                    ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARENDRA N. BETTAD, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BASAVARAJ S/O MAHAMALLAPPA METI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O KUDALSANGAM, TQ. HUNAGUND
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101
                                      ... RESPONDENT

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE AWARD OF LABOUR COURT, VIJAYPUR, DATED 31.05.2016
IN REF.NO.07 OF 2015 (ANNEXURE-G), CONSEQUENTIALLY
RESTORE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY THE
PETITIONER.

   THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                   2




                                ORDER

Though this writ petition is listed for Preliminary

Hearing, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for

final disposal.

      2.     Being      aggrieved     by    the    award      dated

31.05.2016        passed   in   Reference   No.7/2015      by   the

Presiding    Officer,      Labour      Court,     Vijaypur,     the

petitioner/Corporation has filed this writ petition.

3. Facts in nutshell are that the respondent was

working as Conductor in the petitioner/Corporation and he

remained absent for 59 days without intimation to the

petitioner/Corporation and accordingly, on the report made

by the Depot Manager, the petitioner/Corporation issued

Articles of charge to the respondent for which the

respondent has made reply. The petitioner/Corporation

has conducted enquiry against the respondent herein and

pursuant to the same, Enquiry Report was submitted which

reflects that the respondent has committed misconduct in

not intimating the petitioner/Corporation before being

absent from work and the said report of Enquiry Officer

was accepted by the petitioner/Corporation and as such,

the respondent was dismissed from service.

4. However, the petitioner/Corporation has not

paid one month salary to the respondent herein nor filed

application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D.Act') in I.D.No.148/2005

on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. In this regard,

the respondent herein has made application for conciliation

before the Conciliation Officer and the same was not

materialized and accordingly, the respondent filed claim

petition before the Labour Court, Vijayapur, in Reference

No.7/2015. The petitioner/Corporation entered

appearance and filed detailed written statement before the

Labour Court denying the averments made in the claim

petition. In the Labour Court, the claimant/ respondent

adduced evidence as PW.1 and produced two documents

as Exs.P1 and P2. On the other hand, the

petitioner/Corporation has adduced evidence through RW.1

and produced 19 documents and the same were marked as

Exs.R1 to R19. The Labour Court after considering the

material on record by its award dated 31.05.2016 allowed

the reference made by the Government under Section

10(1)(C) of the I.D. Act and set aside the order dated

16.04.2009 passed by the petitioner/Corporation

dismissing the respondent and thereby directed the

petitioner/Corporation to reinstate the respondent into

service with full backwages, continuity of service and other

consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the order

dated 31.05.2016, the petitioner/Corporation has

presented this writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri Narendra N. Bettad, learned

counsel for the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the petitioner/Corporation has conducted

enquiry against the respondent/workman for alleged

absence for a period of 59 days without intimating the

same to the Corporation and the said enquiry is conducted

following the principles of natural justice and therefore, the

impugned award passed by the Labour Court setting aside

the order of dismissal is non-est and has to be interfered in

this writ petition.

7. Having considered the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the

finding recorded by the Labour Court, it would indicate that

the Corporation has not complied with the provisions

contained under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and in

that view of the matter, the Labour Court following the law

declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to in

paragraph-14 of its judgment had come to the conclusion

that the petitioner/Corporation has neither taken up any

defence for non-compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.

Act nor adduced any cogent evidence with regard to the

same. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Labour

Court having taken note of non-taking of defence under

the provisions contained under the I.D. Act has arrived at

a just conclusion in directing the petitioner/ Corporation to

reinstate the respondent herein and awarded

consequential benefits. Therefore, I do not find any

perversity or material irregularity in the award passed by

the Labour Court to exercise power under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*