Karnataka High Court
V. Reddeppa vs The Management Of Nekrtc on 16 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP No. 109648 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 109648 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. V. REDDEPPA,
S/O VENKATRAMAPPA G.,
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
OCC: NIL, SIDHHANHALLI VILLAGE,
POST: BAIRKUR TALUK: MULUBAGIL,
DIST: KOLAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC
BALLARI DIVISION,
REPRESENTED BY
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BALLARI DIVISION,
DIST: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH HOSAMANE., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 27/8/2014, PASSED IN KID.NO.143/2013, PASSED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURES-
C AND E.
-2-
WP No. 109648 of 2016
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 27/8/2014 and impugned award dated 12/4/2016, passed
in KID.No.143/2013, by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Hubballi, dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner
herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. The claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 10
(4-A) of the Industrial Dispute (Karnataka Amendment) Act,
1987 (For short the 'Act') against the respondent-Corporation,
challenging order of removal dated 27/5/2013 and sought for
reinstatement with further consequential benefits. It is the case
of the claimant that the claimant was appointed as conductor
cum driver with the respondent-Corporation on 14/11/2007 and
while he was working as trainee, the officer of the respondent-
Corporation, on verification found that, the claimant herein was
irregular and committed misconduct while he was working as
WP No. 109648 of 2016
conductor cum driver. On the basis of the report made by the
officer of the respondent-Corporation, enquiry officer was
nominated by the disciplinary authority for conducting enquiry
and after due enquiry dismissed the claimant from service on
27/5/2013. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the claimant has
approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court, answered the
issue No.1 in affirmative as per the order dated 27/8/2014 and
by impugned award dated 12/4/2016, dismissed the claim
petition. Being aggrieved by the same, claimant has approached
this Court.
4. I have heard Sri.Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri.Prakash N Hosmane, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
5. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
invited attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the
Labour Court and submitted that, since the petitioner herein is
working as trainee, no issue has been framed by the Labour
Court to say whether the claimant is workman under the Act. In
this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahajan Borewell
WP No. 109648 of 2016
Company V/s. Sri.Rajaram Bhat and another, reported in
ILR 1998 KAR 172, in the case of M.Devendrappa V/.s The
Management of NEKRTC in WP.No. 60645/2009 disposed
of on 26/2/2015, in the case of North West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation V/s. Raghav Ganapati Naik, in
WP.No.67397/2010, disposed of on 3/1/2023 and argued
that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Labour Court.
6. Per contra, Sri.Praksh N Hosmane, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-Corporation sought to justify the
impugned award passed by the Labour Court and argued that
the respondent-Corporation has followed the principles of
natural justice while conducting the departmental enquiry.
Therefore, no interference be called for in this writ petition.
Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and on careful examination of pleadings in the claim
petition filed under Section 10(4) of the Act, at paragraph No.2,
it is stated by the claimant that, the claimant joined, as
conductor in Shiraguppa depot as trainee conductor. In this
regard, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the
WP No. 109648 of 2016
Labour Court, however, taking into consideration the said
aspect that as the petitioner herein is not a permanent
employee and it is stated in the pleadings that, he was a
trainee employee at the relevant period and in that view of the
matter, following the law declared by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Mahajan Borewell Company (supra), I
am of the view that, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the
Labour Court for fresh consideration.
8. Taking into consideration the pleadings on record made
by parties, the issue framed by the Labour Court requires to be
looked into in the guise of the proceedings on record as it is the
case of removal by the respondent-Corporation and major
punishment has been imposed by the respondent-Corporation.
Therefore, I am of the view that the Labour Court, looking into
the aforementioned decision, shall arrive at conclusion in the
matter. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) Impugned order dated 27/8/2014 and the
impugned award dated 12/4/2016, passed in
WP No. 109648 of 2016
KID.No.143/2013, by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Hubballi (Annexures-C and E to the writ
petition) are set aside and the matter is remanded
to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance
with law.
iii) Parties are directed to appear before the Presiding
officer, Labour Court, Hubballi on 6/2/2023 at
11.00 a.m.
iv) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB
