Karnataka High Court
The North West Karnataka Road ... vs Siddaramayya Sangayya Hiremath on 12 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP No. 60092 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 60092 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
REPTED. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLER, NWKRTC,
UTTARA KANNADA DIVISION, SIRSI, REPTED. AT
PRESENT BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SIDDARAMAYYA SANGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 29 YEARS, EX-TRAINEE DRIVER -CUM-
CONDUCTOR, R/O. AIHOLI, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST:
BAGALKOT.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (BY SRI. S K HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2023.01.17
10:46:07 +0530
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
1. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2011 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID NO.52/2010
(ANNEXURE-B).
-2-
WP No. 60092 of 2012
2. QUASH THE AWARD DATED 14.03.2011 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID NO.52.2010
(ANNEXURE-C).
THIS PETITION PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE / DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner Corporation has challenged
the award dated 14.03.2011 in KID No.52/2010 on the file of the
Additional Labour Court, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Labour Court', for brevity), allowing the claim petition in part.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Labour Court.
3. The claimant has filed a petition under Section 10(4-A)
of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1988) Act,
1947, challenging the order of dismissal from service by the
petitioner-Corporation herein on 29.04.2010.
4. The relevant facts are that;
4.1. The workman was appointed as a driver-cum-
conductor with the respondent-Corporation on
WP No. 60092 of 2012
20.11.2007. His service is yet to be confirmed by the
respondent-Corporation.
4.2. In the meanwhile, an enquiry was conducted against
the workman for dereliction of duty while he was
working as a conductor and he was dismissed from
service on 29.04.2010.
4.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has
preferred claim petition before the Labour Court and
the said petition was contested by the respondent-
Corporation.
4.4. In order to establish their case, no oral evidence was
adduced by the workman, however, examined two
witnesses as M.W.1 and M.W.2 and produced 17
documents and the same were marked as Exs.M.1 to
M.7.
4.5. The Labour Court by award dated 14.03.2011 allowed
the claim petition in part and set aside the order of
dismissal dated 29.04.2010, inter alia directed the
respondent - Corporation to reinstate the workman into
WP No. 60092 of 2012
service with continuity of service as well as awarding
50% of back wages from the date of dismissal till
reinstatement to be made.
4.6. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-
Corporation has preferred this writ petition.
5. I have heard Smt. Sunitha P. Kalasoor, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation and Sri. Sourabh
A. Sondur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged
that, the Labour Court has not considered the factual aspects in the
right perspective, as the service of the workman is yet to be
confirmed and he was working as a trainee conductor - cum -
driver and the said fact has not been properly appreciated by the
Labour Court, while considering the material on record and
accordingly sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri. Sourabh A. Sondur, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent argued that the workman was
removed from service after conducting enquiry which came to be
WP No. 60092 of 2012
reversed by the Labour Court after appreciation of the material on
record and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, a careful examination of the writ
papers would indicate that the workman was appointed was a
conductor - cum - driver on 20.11.2007 and the workman is on
probation and at that stage, an enquiry was initiated against the
workman for the alleged dereliction of duty, by the respondent -
Corporation.
9. On careful examination of the material on record, the
respondent-Corporation has raised a plea that appointment of
workman is yet to be confirmed and while he was under
probationary period, the alleged incident has occurred. In this
regard, having taken note of the law declared by the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2596/2005 (North West Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahabaleshwar) decided on
26.09.2005, wherein this Court allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the
respondent-Corporation in identical circumstances and at
paragraph 4 of the said judgment held that, on completion of the
WP No. 60092 of 2012
satisfactory training, the suitability of the workman has to be
considered.
10. In that view of the matter, as argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, that the services
of the workman is yet to be confirmed by the Corporation, I am of
the view that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Labour
Court for fresh consideration, taking into account the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.2596/2005
disposed of on 26.09.2005.
11. In the result, the award dated 14.03.2011 passed in
KID No.52/2010 on the file of the District Judge and Presiding
Officer, Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.
12. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, I am of the
opinion that, as the parties to the writ petition are represented
through their counsel, they are directed to appear before the
Labour Court on 01.02.2023 without waiting for further notice from
the Labour Court. It is also made clear that this Court has not
WP No. 60092 of 2012
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions
of the parties are kept open.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
