DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC Vs. M DEVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Public Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 17.9.2009 in Reference No. 42/2006 Annexure-A in so far as it relates to directing reinstatement of the Respondent to the post of Conductor together with continuity of service and other consequential benefits and 40% backwages and further to treat the period of absence of 2 years 5 months as leave at credit, and if not to be treated as leave without pay.

(2.) Respondent, whilst a Conductor in the Chikmagalur depot of the Petitioner - Corporation, when issued with an order of transfer dated 9.4.2005 posting him to serve at Sakleshpur depot, a distance of 15-20 kms. by road, failed to report to duty at the place of posting and remained absent thereafter, up-to 29.9.2007 following which, disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuing an articles of charge Ex.M-12 dated 17.8.2005. Respondent, by reply Ex.M-13 stated to be suffering from jaundice and hence unable to report to duty and in addition to have lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha police against one B. Boraiah, Assistant Administrative Officer of Chikmagahur division of the Petitioner - Corporation, registered as Spl. Case No. 11/2007, following which Boraiah allegedly threatened the Respondent of dire consequences. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the explanation offered and being of the opinion that there were grounds to enquire into the truth of the charge, appointed an Inquiring authority, who after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Respondent, submitted a report Ex.M-44 holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice Ex.M-47 to which the Respondent submitted a reply. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the reply and having regard to the material on record held the Respondent guilty of the charge, which was a grave misconduct, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner's past record of service disclosed imposition of minor penalties on four occasion, for unauthorisedly absence being extenuating circumstances and not mitigating circumstances by order dated 25.9.2007 dismissed the Respondent from service.

(3.) Respondent initiated conciliation proceedings, over the dismissal from service, resulting in failure report of the conciliation officer, followed by an order dated 16.12.2008 of the State Government referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court at Chikmagalur, registered as Reference No. 42/2008. Respondent fifed a claim statement which was resisted by the Petitioner, arraigned as second party, on notice, by filing counter statement. The Labour Court, in the premise of pleading of parties, framed an additional issue over the validity of the domestic enquiry and parties having lead in oral and documentary evidence, by order dated 3.8.2009, answered the aforesaid issue in the Affirmative holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper.