M/S Mysore Paper Mills Limited ... vs Sri Shankar S Jadabutti
2022 Latest Caselaw 9206 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

                     PRESENT
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                       AND

         THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

           W.A.NO.1415 OF 2021 (S-RES)
                        IN
           W.P.NO.20449 OF 2015 (S-RES)

  BETWEEN:

  1.     M/S MYSORE PAPER MILLS
         LIMITED PAPER TOWN
         BHADRAVATHI - 577 302
         SHIMOGA DISTRICT
         REPRESENTED BY ITS
         MANAGING DIRECTOR

  2.     THE SENIOR MANAGER (HRDP)
         IN-CHARGE AND DISCIPLIANRY AUTHORITY
         M/S MYSORE PAPER MILLS
         LIMITED PAPER TOWN
         BHADRAVATHI - 577 302
         SHIMOGA DISTRICT
         NOW REPRESENTED BY
         CHIEF ADMINISTRIATIVE OFFICER

  3.     THE SENIOR MANGER
         (TOWN ADMINSITRATION)
         M/S MYSORE PAPER MILLS
         LIMITED PAPER TOWN
         BHADRAVATHI - 577 302
                      2



     SHIMOGA DISTRICT
     NOW REPRESENTED BY
     CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
                                ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
    SMT. SUNITA SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI SHANKAR S JADABUTTI
S/O LATE SANKARAPPA JADABUTTI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WAS WORKING AS WIRELESS OPERATOR
INDUSTRIAL VEHICLES
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
M/S MYSORE PAPER MILLS
LIMITED PAPER TOWN
BHADARAVATHI - 577 302
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
R/AT H NO INP 9/280
PAPER TOWN
BHADRAVATHI - 577 302
SHIMOGA DISTRICT

                             ... RESPONDENT

     THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
No.20449/2015 (S-RES) AND b) PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

    THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY      HEARING,     THIS    DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                         3



                   JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed

against order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the

learned Single in W.P.No.20449/2015 by which

the writ petition preferred by the respondent has

been allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this

appeal briefly stated are that the respondent was

appointed as Wireless Operator in Mysore Paper

Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Company' for short). The respondent at the

relevant point of time i.e., on 09.12.1998 was

posted as Wireless Operator in the company. The

Personnel Officer of the Company got a statement

recorded from the respondent in connection with

alleged misconduct committed by one Sri.

Srinivasa Murthy for creation of a fake document

in favour of one Raju that he had supplied 10.255

tons of sugarcane on 23.11.1998. A charge sheet

was issued to the delinquent employee viz.,

Srinivasa Murthy and a departmental enquiry

was held. The penalty of dismissal from service

was imposed on the aforesaid Srinivasa Murthy.

The delinquent employee raised an industrial

dispute under Section 10 (4) (a) of Industrial

Disputes Act, in I.D.A.No.41/2000 and the

Industrial Tribunal passed an order in favour of

the delinquent employee and directed his

reinstatement with 50% of backwages was

directed.

3. After 12 years from the date of incident

i.e., 09.12.1998, a charge sheet dated 17.12.2010

was issued to the respondent in which it was

stated that he had committed certain misconduct

in issuing gate-pass to one Sri.H.Raju and the

said act of issuing gate pass has resulted in

creation of fake sale deed by Sri.Srinivasa Murthy

for supplying of sugarcane.

4. The respondent thereupon filed a

representation, by which he sought furnishing of

29 documents for his defence in the enquiry.

However, the said documents were not supplied

to the respondent. The respondent again

reiterated his request for furnishing of the said

documents. The inquiry proceedings were

initiated against the respondent and continued

without furnishing the documents sought by the

respondent. The enquiry officer on completion of

enquiry submitted a report in which the

respondent was found guilty of the charges

leveled against him.

5. Thereafter, an order was passed on

16.04.2015 by which penalty of dismissal from

service was imposed on the respondent by the

Disciplinary Authority. The respondent filed an

appeal before the Appellate Authority and during

the pendency of the appeal, he filed writ petition

before the learned Single Judge. The learned

Single Judge by an order dated 20.09.2021 inter-

alia held that in peculiar facts of the case, the

respondent has to be relegated to the remedy of

raising an industrial dispute as would be a

workman under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. It was further held that the enquiry was

held against the respondent amounted to gross

violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch

as neither documents sought by the respondent

nor the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to

him. Learned Single Judge has further held that

the respondent is aged about 60 years and has

already attained the age of superannuation. The

learned Single Judge, therefore, quashed the

order of dismissal dated 13.04.2015 and

consequently order dated 16.04.2015 was also

quashed and the respondent was held entitled to

full backwages and all other incidental service

benefits. In the aforesaid factual background of

the case, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for appellant

submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly

erred in relegating the respondent to the remedy

of rising an industrial dispute. It is further

submitted that respondent would have been

supplied with copy of the documents and enquiry

report in proceedings before the Labour Court.

7. We have considered the submissions

made by both sides and have perused the record.

8. It is trite law the existence of an

alternative remedy by in itself is not a bar to the

exercise of the extraordinary discretionary

jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India [SEE:

RADHAKRISHNA INDUSTRIES VS STATE OF

HIMACHAL PRADESH 2021 SCC Online SC

334].

9. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention

here that there has been an unexplained delay of

12 years in the initiation of departmental enquiry

against the delinquent employee and the same

has been taken note of by the learned Single

Judge while passing the impugned order.

10. Admittedly, neither the documents

sought for by the delinquent employee during the

enquiry have been furnished to him nor the

enquiry report has been furnished to him to so as

to enable him to make representation against the

same to the Disciplinary Authority.

11. The learned Single Judge has therefore,

rightly exercised the extraordinary discretionary

jurisdiction vested in him under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and orders dated

13.04.2015 and 16.04.2015 were quashed

holding that the departmental enquiry against the

respondent has been conducted in flagrant

violation of principles of natural justice. The

impugned order does not suffer from any

infirmity and no grounds have been made out by

the appellant to interfere with the impugned

order.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not

find any merit in the appeal. In the result the

appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RR