Mohammed Illiyas vs Karnataka State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5577 Kant

                             1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                          PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. No.1160 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)
                            IN
             W.P. No.56695 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED ILLIYAS
S/O AMEER SAB
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.21
MUSLIM BLOCK
BEHIND T. MARIYAPPA COLLEGE
K.R. NAGARA, MYSURU -570 001.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. VIVEK S, ADV.,)

AND:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MYSURU RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAP ROAD
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                      ... RESPONDENT
                           ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.56695/2017
(L-KSRTC) DATED 10.06.2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
APPEAL.
                                 2




      THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 10.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, by which

the writ petition filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for

short) against the award of the Labour Court imposing the

penalty of withholding of two increments has been set aside

and the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the

appellant has been upheld.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant was employed as a driver on

17.08.2000. The appellant remained unauthorizedly absent

on 10.01.2012. Thereafter he was subjected to the

disciplinary proceedings. The appellant sought permission to

report for duty on 24.08.2012 and he was permitted to

report for duty on 24.08.2012 itself. However, the appellant

did not join the duties. By an order dated 19.12.2012, the

disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from

services on the appellant. However, the appellate authority

by an order dated 24.06.2008 modified the aforesaid

punishment and directed continuance of the services of the

appellant. Thereafter, again a penalty of dismissal was

imposed on the appellant. The appellant thereupon raised an

industrial dispute in the year 2015 seeking the relief of

setting aside the order dated 19.12.2012. The Labour Court

while exercising the powers under Section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act' for short) modified the order of dismissal and imposed

the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative

effect. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Corporation

in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The

learned Single Judge by an order date 10.06.2021 has

allowed the writ petition and has restored the order of

dismissal dated 19.12.2012. Being aggrieved, the appellant

has filed this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

learned Single Judge grossly erred in interfering with the

quantum of punishment which was imposed by Labour Court

in exercise of powers under Section 11A of the Act.

4. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the

record. Admittedly, the appellant has remained

unauthorizedly absent for a period from 10.01.2012 till

19.12.2012 i.e., for a period of 11 months and 5 days and a

further period of 637 days subsequent to the passing of the

award. The appellant has not offered any explanation of the

aforesaid period of unauthorized absence. The learned single

Judge therefore, has held that the Labour Court exceeded its

jurisdiction by invoking Section 11A of the Act in substituting

the penalty while modifying the same by withholding of two

increments with cumulative effect. Admittedly, the appellant

remained absent for a period of 637 days i.e., approximately

two years subsequent to the passing of the award for which

no explanation has been offered. The punishment imposed

on the appellant by the Corporation could not be said to be

excessive or grossly disproportionate. The learned Single

Judge has therefore rightly quashed the award passed by the

Labour Court and has allowed the writ petition. We,

therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order

passed by learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS