Abdulrehaman S/O. Nabisab Pyati vs The Management Of Nwkrtc
2023 Latest Caselaw 3002 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                            WP No. 106077 of 2015




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                                BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 106077 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)

                       BETWEEN:

                             SRI. ABDULREHAMAN
                             S/O NABISAB PYATI,
                             (SINCE DECESED BY HIS L.R'S)

                       1a) SMT. HASINA
                           D/O ABDUL REHMAN BEPARI,
                           AGE: 29 YEARS,
                           OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS.

                       1b) MUBARAK
                           S/O ABDUL REHMAN PYATI,
                           AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.
          Digitally
          signed by
          RAKESH S
                       1c)   SMT. HAMEDA
          HARIHAR
          Location:
                             W/O ABDUL REHMAN BEPARI,
RAKESH
S
          High Court
          of
                             AGE: 59 YEARS,
HARIHAR   Karnataka,
          Dharwad            OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS.
          Date:
          2023.06.14
          14:31:44
          +0530        1d) DAWOOD
                           S/O ABDUL REHMAN PYATI,
                           AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.

                       1e) SMT. TARNAM
                           W/O RIYAZ SHAIKH,
                           AGE: 34 YEARS,
                           OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS.

                       1f)   HAZARATH BILAL
                             S/O ABDUL REHMAN PYATI,
                              -2-
                                      WP No. 106077 of 2015




       AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

       ALL ARE R/O. JANTA PLOT,
       HANSABHAVI,
       TQ: HIREKERUR,
       DIST: HAVERI-581109.
                                             ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. AHAMED ALI J RAHIMANSHA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC,
HAVERI DIVISION,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI.
                                             ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)


       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE

WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER, QUASHING THE AWARD

PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT HUBLI IN KID NO.125/2013

DATED 27.12.2014 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE D &

ETC.


       THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:
                                  -3-
                                          WP No. 106077 of 2015




                              ORDER

The instant writ petition is filed by the workman assailing

the award Annexure - D dated 27.12.2014 passed by the

Labour Court, Hubballi in proceedings bearing KID No.125/2013

and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent

to reinstate the petitioner into service with full backwages and

other consequential benefits.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also

perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a trainee driver

with the respondent - Corporation on 05.01.2001 and was

confirmed to the said post on 03.02.2003. On the allegation of

unauthorized absence for the period from 10.07.2010 to

09.11.2010, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner.

However, the petitioner had not given any reply to the same.

Thereafter, the respondent - Corporation had held an enquiry

against the petitioner. In the said proceedings, the Enquiry

Officer had submitted a report that the charges levelled against

the petitioner was proved. Based on the said report, an order of

punishment was issued against the petitioner by the

WP No. 106077 of 2015

management on 30.12.2012 dismissing him from services.

Assailing the same, the petitioner had approached the Labour

Court under Section 2-A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

Labour Court having held that domestic enquiry conducted

against the petitioner was fair and proper, thereafterwards vide

the impugned award dated 27.12.2014 dismissed the claim

petition. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is

before this Court. The award passed by the Labour Court has

been assailed by the petitioner on the following grounds:

That sufficient explanation was offered for his unauthorized absence the same was not considered.

The past history of the petitioner was not proved by the management.

The punishment imposed was disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

The petitioner aged about 54 years and he has no chances of getting any other employment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted

that the petitioner is a history sheeter with 14 similar cases and

he was earlier punished by imposing minor punishments. Under

WP No. 106077 of 2015

the circumstances, the management was justified in dismissing

him from service.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not given

any reply to the charge sheet wherein allegation was made

about his unauthorized absence. He has also not produced any

document in support of his explanation that his daughter had

met with an accident and had suffered injury and also his son

had suffered fracture. Therefore, no proper explanation was

offered by the petitioner for his unauthorized absence for the

period from 10.07.2010 to 09.11.2010.

6. The petitioner had examined himself as WW1.

During the course of his cross-examination, the petitioner has

admitted that in as many as 10 cases for unauthorized

absence, he was imposed punishment by the management.

Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner

that the management had not proved his past history. It is not

the case of the petitioner that he had applied for leave or that

his application for leave was pending consideration before the

competent authority. The document at Ex.M8 medical

certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been

WP No. 106077 of 2015

disbelieved by the Labour Court since the author of the said

document is not examined. Even if the said document is taken

into consideration, from 17.10.2010 onwards till 09.11.2010,

the petitioner further remained unauthorizedly absent and no

explanation is offered for the same. Ex.M4 is the document

which shows about the past history of the petitioner. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L & T Komatsu Ltd., vs.

N.Udayakumar reported in (2008) 1 SCC 224 in almost

identical circumstances, wherein the workman who had been in

the past found guilty of unauthorized absenteeism several

times was in a properly conducted departmental enquiry once

again found guilty of unauthorized absence for a long period of

105 days is held that his consequential dismissal from service

cannot be said to be harsh and the same cannot be interfered

by the Labour Court or High Court.

7. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court

have time and again said that by placing misplaced sympathies

and benevolence, gravity of such misconducts and the acts of

discipline cannot be mitigated. The Tribunal having appreciated

the various judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court which are applicable to the facts and

WP No. 106077 of 2015

circumstances of the case has rightly dismissed the claim

petition of the petitioner. I am of the view that the impugned

award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any

irregularity which calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Rsh/Ct:Bck