DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, NK DIVISION, SIRSI, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030 Vs. KRISHNAPPA S/O. DEVAPPA NAIK, EX. CONDUCTOR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS (1. SMT. YESHODHA W/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the appellant -Corporation is directed against the impugned order dated 11th November 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 66413/2009. The appellant/petitioner has questioned the correctness of the award dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli in KID No. 68/2002 vide Annexure -D before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 66413/2009. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said petition in part and quashed the order passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, in so far as it relates to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/ - and levy interest on the amount payable by appellant/petitioner and in all other aspects, the impugned award remains intact and undisturbed and also permitted the respondents to withdraw the amount in deposit and balance amount if any is to be paid by the appellant/petitioner within six weeks from that date. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/petitioner has presented this appeal.

(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for appellant Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani at the outset is that, both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge has erred in issuing a direction to pay back -wages for a period of 8 years, on the ground that, when the matter is pending adjudication before the Additional Labour Court, the workman died and his legal representatives have come on record and therefore, there is no justification in awarding back -wages. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it emerges that, deceased Krishnappa was a Conductor in the Corporation and he was served with articles of charges on 10.10.1998 contending that during the year 1997, deceased had produced tampered way bills on different dates and on scrutiny of these way bills, it was found that deceased has mis -appropriated the funds belonging to the Corporation, enquiry was held and on 25.1.2002, penalty of dismissal order was passed and aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, deceased raised the dispute before the Labour Court, which in turn on appreciation of the material on record held that appellant/petitioner to prove and establish the charge against the deceased and since he died during the pendency of proceedings the relief of reinstatement was denied and has directed payment of back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits and also levied cost of Rs. 5,000/ -and against the said order, appellant/corporation has filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Further it emerges that, the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and perusing the papers, has opined that the deceased fabricated waybills between May, June and July 1997 on 15 occasions and after lapse of one year, the fabrication of way bills came to be noticed and or) scrutiny of the same and the Labour Court taking into consideration regulation Nos. 21,22,23 and 24 specifying duty of receiving clerk of the way bills has opined that the receiving and scrutiny branch failed to discharge their duty in accordance with the regulations and raised a doubt that deceased had fabricated the way bills at the time of producing the same to the Corporation and held that charge leveled against the deceased as not proved and therefore, the reasoning of the Labour Court is in accordance with law and there is no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Further, the learned Single Judge has also opined that there is no justification for the Labour Court to levy cost of Rs. 5,000/ - and also the interest on the payment of dues payable to the legal representatives of the deceased when the Corporation on a bonafide belief initiated enquiry proceedings. It is not intentional nor deliberate or negligent on the part of the Corporation in holding enquiry and passing order of penalty on the deceased and the circumstances do not warrant levy costs and interest and accordingly, quashed the award passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, in KID No. 68/2002 in so far as it relates to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/ - and levy interest on the amount payable by the Corporation. The reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge in para -6 of the order is just and reasonable.