Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director, N.E.K.R.T.C And ... vs Basappa S/O Gireppa on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3640
WP No. 203110 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO.203110 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
N.E.K.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE,
KALABURAGI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.E.K.R.T.C., BELLARY DIVISION,
BELLARY.
(BOTH REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF LAW OFFICER)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BASAPPA S/O GIREPPA
AGE: ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
(EX.D-CUM-C NO.3055),
R/O ALKAVATTAGI, TQ.LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR - 584101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI WHEREBY QUASHING THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3640
WP No. 203110 of 2017
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY DISTRICT JUDGE AND
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KALABURAGI DATED
03.12.2016 IN KID. NO.26 OF 2015 AS AT ANNEXURE-D TO
THIS WRIT PETITION. II) ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW OF
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE STATED
ABOVE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners-
Corporation challenging the order passed by the Labour
Court, Kalaburagi in KID No.26/2015 dated 03.12.2016.
Though this petition is stated for preliminary hearing,
with consent of both side, the matter is taken up for
disposal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent has
been working as Conductor-cum-driver in the Corporation.
He remained unauthorized absent from 10.05.2012 to
13.03.2013 for a period of 313 days. Considering the
misconduct of the respondent, petitioner-Corporation held
disciplinary enquiry against respondent in enquiry
No.32/2015. After recording the evidence, the enquiry
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3640
officer conducted the enquiry and given the report to the
disciplinary authority. Thereafter, disciplinary authority
and divisional controller of petitioner-Corporation vide
order dated 04.02.2015 dismissed the respondent from
service. The said order was challenged by the respondent
before Labour Court in KID No.26/2015.
3. The Labour Court after hearing the parties, held
that in domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was
not fair and proper. The Labour Court gave opportunities
to both side to lead evidence; Conducted enquiry and
recorded the evidence of both side. Thereafter after
hearing both side and appreciating evidence on record,
passed the impugned order.
4. The Labour Court in its finding held that
respondent had filed application for grant of leave on
08.06.2012 and 25.06.2012 on medical grounds. However
no orders were passed by the Corporation, either granting
or rejecting the leave. Therefore, holding of enquiry on
the pretext that the respondent was unauthorizedly absent
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3640
from service was not proper. The Labour Court had also
considered that normally the principle of 'no work no pay'
has to be followed. However in this case, due to
negligence on the part of the concerned officer of the
Corporation no orders were passed on the leave
application filed by the respondent. Considering the same,
the Corporation was directed to pay 50% of back wages
from the date of petition till date of reinstatement.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
both the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that from the date of dismissal of the respondent till
reinstatement, after passing of the impugned order he did
not work for the Corporation. Therefore, directing the
Corporation to pay 50% of the back wages is very harsh
order, it needs to be interfered. He has also submitted
that reasons assigned by the Labour Court in rejecting the
order passed by the disciplinary authority is not proper.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3640
Hence, prayed for setting aside the same both on merit as
well as regarding direction to pay the back wages.
7. The learned counsel for respondent supported
the impugned order and submitted that there is no reason
to interfere with the said findings. The Labour Court in
detail considered the facts of the case as well as question
of law involved in this case. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition.
8. I have gone through the findings of the Labour
Court. The Labour Court on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence held that respondent-Conductor
had filed an application for grant of leave before the
concerned officer of the Corporation, which were marked
before the Labour Court and no orders were passed on the
said application. Considering the reasons in the leave
application, the Corporation ought to have passed suitable
orders including the grant of leave without pay. However,
no such orders were passed. On the contrary, to cover up
the mistake of the officers they held enquiry alleging that
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3640
respondent was unauthorizedly absent from the duty.
These facts were considered in detail and the Labour Court
had passed appropriate order by assigning the valid
reasons.
9. It is not in dispute that from the date of
dismissal from the service i.e. from 04.02.2015 till the
date of reinstatement 03.12.2016 nearly one year ten
months respondent did not work in the Corporation might
be due to the mistake of the officers of the Corporation.
Petitioner-Corporation had suffered by shortage of labour
in addition to that it is directed to pay 50% of the back
wages during the period when respondent did not work. It
would be financial loss to the Corporation.
10. Considering the equities and unique facts and
circumstances of the present case, it is felt appropriate to
reduce the amount of back wages to be paid; instead of
payment of back wages of 50%, it is directed to the
petitioner to pay 25% of the back wages from the date of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3640
dismissal to reinstatement to service. Accordingly, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) The order passed by the Labour Court,
Kalaburagi in KID No.26/2015 dated
03.12.2016 is modified in respect of
payment of back wages; Instead of 50%
of the back wages, the petitioner-
Corporation is directed to pay 25% of the
back wages from the date of dismissal of
respondent till his reinstatement into
service within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
CT:PK
