MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -workman was a trainee conductor with the petitioner Corporation. On the allegation that the workman was posing himself as a checking inspector and checking the tickets of the passengers, a complaint was lodged to the jurisdictional police and the case was registered. A disciplinary enquiry was also initiated. Charges were framed and held proved. The name of the respondent was removed from the list of trainee conductor. Thereafter a dispute was raised under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By the impugned order the order of removal was set aside. The petitioner management was directed to include the name of the first party in the selection list. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent -workman was a trainee conductor. Hence the question of he being put back in the selection list does not arise for consideration. In support of his case he relies on the Judgment dated 26 -9 -2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal No. 2596/2005. The Division Bench therein held that it is only on the completion of satisfactory training that his case would be considered for appointment provided there is a vacant post. That the continuation of his name in the list of trainee was therefore opposed to law. Since the workman was only a trainee under the Corporation, the Corporation was justified in removing his name. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation defends the impugned order.

(2.) ON hearing learned counsels I am of the considered view that the appropriate relief requires to be granted. The Labour Court by the impugned order directed the petitioner to include the name of the first party in the selection list. This very issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court. The law as enunciated by the Division Bench stands applicable to the facts of this case. The petitioner Corporation could not be directed to include the name of the petitioner in the selection list. It is also relevant to note that the workman is involved in 4 previous cases where he was imposed with penalty. This is when he was working as trainee. Admittedly, the workman herein was a trainee conductor under the petitioner. He was not confirmed. The allegations made against him was when he was a trainee. Hence, in view of the order of the Division Bench referred to above no relief could be granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated 9 -8 -2012 passed in KID No. 25/2012 by the Labour Court, Hubli, is set aside.