Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Mahantesh S/O Basavantappa Biradar on 31 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3498-DB
WA No.200076 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.200076 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.E.K.R.T.C., VIJAYAPURA DIVISION,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
(REPRESENTED BY THE
CHIEF LAW OFFICER).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DEEPAK V.BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR MAHANTESH
Location: HIGH S/O BASAVANTAPPA BIRADAR,
COURT OF AGE ABOUT: 39 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
OCC: EX., DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR,
R/O: AT AND POST HANDIGANUR,
TQ: SINDAGI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAKASH MAISALAGI, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, 1861, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3498-DB
WA No.200076 of 2020
THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.203924/2015, FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY
RAJESH RAI K J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the legality
and validity of the order dated 10.03.2020 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.203924/2015, wherein the
petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed in part
and the order passed by the Labour Court at Vijayapura in
Ref.No.5/2013 was set aside and thereby, a direction was
given to the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the
respondent in service without continuity of service and
without backwages within four weeks.
2. The facts arise for consideration which are
borne out from the pleadings are as under:
The respondent joined the service of appellant-
Corporation as driver-cum-conductor and was removed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3498-DB
from service on 19.10.2010, on alleged ground of
unauthorized absenteeism for duty from 18.11.2009 to
14.04.2010. The appellant-Corporation issued a show
cause notice regarding unauthorized absenteeism and
after conducting enquiry proceedings had removed the
respondent from the service on 19.10.2010. Aggrieved by
the said order, the respondent filed an application before
the Labour Officer Bijapur, and since the conciliation
proceedings failed, the matter was referred for
adjudication before the Labour Court. Before the Labour
Court, the appellant entered appearance and thereafter,
the Labour Court framed the relevant issues and to prove
the case, the respondent himself was examined as PW.1
and got marked one document as Ex.P1, however, the
appellant examined its Officers as RWs.1 and 2 and got
marked 20 documents as Exs.R1 to R20.
3. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the Labour Court dismissed the reference filed
by the respondent under Section 10(1) read with section
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3498-DB
2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereby
confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed the writ
petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court and
the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part
as stated supra. Challenge to the same is lis before this
Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant-Corporation so also the respondent.
5. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant-Corporation that, the learned
Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the
respondent was a trainee and during the period of training
itself, he remained absent on three occasions. Moreover,
Ex.R20 placed by the appellant before the Labour Court,
ie., the appointment order of the respondent clearly
depicts that if the trainee during the time of training
remains absent unauthorisedly, he can be removed from
the service. As such, the appellant-Corporation rightly
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3498-DB
removed the respondent from service. Further, the
intermittent absence of workman causes great hardship to
the employer Transport organisation in its day to day run
of the business, as such, the Corporation rightly removed
the respondent from service. Considering those aspects
which were proved before the Labour Court, the Presiding
Officer of the Labour Court rightly rejected the reference
filed by the respondent. However, the learned Single
Judge without considering those documents and evidence,
passed the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge of
this Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of
the case so also on examining the documents placed
before the Labour Court, rightly set aside the dismissal
order by allowing the writ petition, which does not call for
any interference.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3498-DB
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
so also the documents made available before us, the only
point that would arise for our consideration is:
i. Whether the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.203924/2015
dated 10.03.2020 requires interference by this
Court?
8. As could be seen from the records so also the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition
that the unauthorized absenteeism by the respondent
during the period from 18.11.2009 to 14.04.2010 about
five months, only for the reason that he was suffering
from fever and took treatment from the doctor who said to
have told that the respondent was suffering from jaundice,
as such, he was not in a position to intimate the same to
his higher officers or to take permission from them for
leave. Inspite of that, he was terminated from service by
imposing maximum penalty. In such circumstance, the
learned Single Judge has rightly came to the conclusion
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3498-DB
that the employer has to conduct itself as a 'model
employer' consistent with the spirit of Directive Principles
enshrined in Part-4 of the Constitution by placing reliance
on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh
vs. Bhagatram (AIR 1975 SCC 1331), we find no good
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, we answer the point raised
above in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
CT;BN
