LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-132

GENERAL MANAGER Vs. MALLESHA

Decided On January 22, 2020
GENERAL MANAGER Appellant
V/S
MALLESHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2848 of 2017 has filed this writ appeal challenging the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.01.2017, whereby, the award of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with immediate effect and 50% back-wages was confirmed.

(2.) In the Writ Petition filed, it is stated that the respondent was a workman in its establishment. The respondent had attempted to assault a security guard and the security supervisor intervened and protected the security guard. Consequent to this, the petitioner issued an order suspending the respondent followed by a domestic enquiry. It is stated that the respondent again indulged in another attempt of assault on the security guards on 01.07.2012 in which regard complaint was registered with the concerned police by the security supervisor. It is stated that the domestic enquiry was held against the respondent and at the domestic enquiry, the respondent admitted to the charges leveled against him. After the enquiry concluded, a report was submitted to the petitioner where the charges were held to be proved. The petitioner therefore passed an order of dismissal of the respondent with effect from 24.12.2012. The respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court in terms of its order held that the enquiry was fair and proper and thereafter the respondent led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record passed an order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% backwages. The petitioner challenged this order of the Labour Court before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge felt that there was no injury was caused by the alleged assault by the respondent and also noticed that the security guard who was assaulted was not examined before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge also held that there was no evidence of the police apart from the apology letter that was placed by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge held that the apology letter was prepared in the police station and therefore, the same cannot be looked into. The learned Single Judge also held that the respondent is not habituated to defy his superiors and therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of the Labour Court. The petitioner is in appeal before us.

(3.) It is argued by the petitioner that the respondent is in the habit of staying away from work and also is in the habit of assaulting the security staff and that there were two past instances.