NORTH EAST KARNATAKA Vs. M N RAMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is a driver attached to the Hassan Depot of the petitioner-Corporation. On 16. 1. 1993 he conducted himself righteously in the premises of the Depot. He assaulted Junior Assistant H. S. Maheshwara and caused him bleeding injuries. Not content with this, he returned to the Depot later in the night with a chopper in hand and terrorized a traffic official and caused damage to the furniture in his office. The matter was immediately reported to the police. Thereafter, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner. When he denied the said charges a disciplinary enquiry was initiated. After holding enquiry the enquiry officer submitted a report that the misconduct alleged against the respondent is proved. Acting on the said report the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal of the respondent from service. The order of dismissal was passed on 6. 1. 1999. The respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 19. 8. 1999 before the Labour Court at Gulbarga. He contended that the domestic enquiry conducted is not fair and proper. He denied the entire charges Leveled against him and he sought for setting aside the order of dismissal. Enquiry was conducted on the preliminary point. By order dated 9. 4. 2001 the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry held is valid and proper. Thereafter, the parties were permitted to produce evidence in respect of their respective contentions. The Labour Court on appreciation of the material on record came to the conclusion that the first charge of misconduct alleged against the respondent is not proved. However, the second charge of misconduct stands proved. In exercise of power under Section 11a of the Act, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charge proved and therefore set aside the order of dismissal, ordered reinstatement without any back wages but with continuity of service by its award dated 29. 6. 2002 in KID No. 394/1999. Against the said award, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailing the said award of the Labour Court contends as under:

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends when the Criminal Court acquitted the respondent honourably of all the charges levelled against him, the Labour Court was fully justified in holding that the misconduct which was covered under those charges are not proved. Though the second charge was held to be proved it has only resulted in damage to the property and therefore the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal on the ground of punishment being disproportionate to the charges proved in exercise of the powers under Section 11a of the Act. On the question of limitation it was submitted a learned single Judge of this Court has taken a view even though an application under Section 10 (4-A) is not filed within six months as stipulated in law, it is open to the Labour Court to take a lenient view in the matter and entertain and in that view of the matter the Labour Court has entertained the matter which is barred by time and granted relief to the workman, it cannot be found fault with. Therefore, he submits a case for interference with the Labour Court award is not made out.