Karnataka High Court
N Sarojamma vs The Divisional Controller on 23 February, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
WA No. 112 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
N SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A BEHIND SHANKAR KALYANA MANTAPA
HOSAKERE AT AND POST
MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572132
...APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by R (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
DEEPA
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560027
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP
No.26454/2018 DATED 10.11.2022.
-2-
WA No. 112 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed challenging the order dated
10.11.2022, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.
26454/2018.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.
3. The appellant was working as a conductor in the
respondent-Corporation. She remained unauthorizedly
absent from duty. The disciplinary authority issued a
charge-sheet to the appellant for which the appellant
suitably replied. The respondent being dissatisfied with
the reply submitted by the appellant, decided to initiate
domestic enquiry. The respondent appointed enquiry
officer for conducting domestic enquiry. The enquiry
officer conducted an enquiry and observed that the
charges leveled against the appellant are proved and
submitted a report to the respondent. The respondent
WA No. 112 of 2023
acting on the findings of the enquiry officer, passed an
order of dismissal from service. The appellant aggrieved
by the order of dismissal, raised a dispute under Section
10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the III
Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.41/2016.
The respondent filed statement of objections denying
the averments made in the claim petition and contended
that the appellant remained unauthorizedly absent from
19.03.2011 without prior permission and contended that
show-cause notice was issued. The appellant replied to
the show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority being
dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the appellant,
decided to initiate domestic enquiry against the appellant.
The disciplinary authority issued article of charges ot the
appellant. The appellant submitted a reply. The
disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the reply,
decided to hold an enquiry and appointed an enquiry
officer. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and
submitted a report. The disciplinary authority on the
WA No. 112 of 2023
findings submitted by the enquiry officer, passed an order
of termination. Hence the order of dismissal passed by
the respondent is in accordance with law. Hence prayed
to dismiss the claim petition.
The labour Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by
the second party corporation against the first
party is fair and proper?
2. Whether the first party proves that the order
of dismissal under No.KARASA/BENKEVI/
GAIHAHB/57/16/2953/16-17 dtd.09.12.2016
is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside?
3. What order or award?
Issue No.1 was treated as preliminary issue and
answered in negative holding that the enquiry conducted
against the appellant is not fair and proper. Thereafter
respondent examined two witnesses as MW-2 and MW-3
and got marked documents Ex.M15 to M19. The appellant
examined herself as WW-1 and no documents were
marked in the evidence. The labour Court after recording
WA No. 112 of 2023
the evidence and considering the material on record held
that the appellant fails to prove that the order of dismissal
is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the labour Court dismissed the claim
petition vide award dated 17.03.2018. the appellant
aggrieved by the award passed by the labour Court in
I.D.No.41/2016, preferred a writ petition in
W.P.No.26454/2018. The learned Single Judge on re-
appreciation of material on record, confirmed the award
passed by the labour Court vide order dated 10.11.2022.
The appellant aggrieved by the order passed the writ
petition, has filed this appeal
4. Learned counsel for the appellant though made
an attempt to submit before this Court that the
explanation for the unauthorized absence during the year
2015-16 provided by the appellant and the past record of
the appellant ought not to have been considered by the
learned Single Judge, hence, the order passed by the
WA No. 112 of 2023
learned Single Judge is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence on
these grounds he prays to allow the writ appeal.
5. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. The appellant was working as a conductor in the
respondent-Corporation. It is the case of the respondent
that the appellant remained unauthorizedly absent without
prior permission from the authorities. The respondent
issued a show-cause notice calling upon the appellant to
submit reply. The appellant submitted a reply to the
show-cause notice. The respondent being dissatisfied with
the reply, issued charge-sheet to the appellant. The
respondent appointed an enquiry officer to conduct
departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer after holding an
enquiry recorded a finding that the charges leveled against
the appellant are proved. The disciplinary authority
considering the enquiry report passed an order of
dismissal from service. The appellant examined herself as
WW-1 before the labour Court. During the course of
WA No. 112 of 2023
cross-examination, she admits that the appellant was
directed to appear before the Assistant Director, Health &
Family Welfare Services, Bengaluru for medical check-up
to assess the percentage of disability of the appellant and
further she has admitted that the medical records
produced by her are subsequent to the charge-sheeted
absence period and she also admitted that she has not
given any letter prior to 19.03.2011. Further she has also
admitted that on earlier 25 occasions she has remained
unauthorizedly absent and minor penalty was imposed on
her. From the perusal of the evidence of WW-1, it is clear
that the appellant has remained unauthorizedly absent on
25 occasions and she is a habitual absentee. The labour
Court considering the evidence placed on record, held that
the appellant has failed to prove that the order of
dismissal is arbitrary and illegal and further recorded a
finding that the absence of the appellant is willful and not
for a bona fide reason. The learned Single Judge on re-
appreciation of material on record, confirmed the award
passed by the labour Court. The labour Court as well as
WA No. 112 of 2023
learned Single Judge have recorded a fact finding against
the appellant. The labour Court as well as learned Single
Judge were justified in passing the award and order
passed in the writ petition. We do not find any error
apparent on the face of record warranting indulgence of
this Court. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RD
