T.S. RANGASWAMY Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against an award dated 25.07.2011 passed in Reference No.61/2005 by the Labour Court at Mysore, allowing the reference in part and setting aside and modifying the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the KSRTC - Management withholding two increments and directing the management to pay 50% of back wages to the workman from the date of removal from service i.e., from 21.04.2004 till the date of reinstatement. W.P.No.17466/2012 has been filed by the management to quash the award passed by the Labour Court. W.P.No.25199/2012 has been filed by the workman to quash the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of denying 50% back wages and also modifying the punishment of withholding two increments and denial of consequential benefits. The workman has also sought for issue of a direction to the management to reinstate him with continuity of service, extend all consequential benefits including full back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of his reinstatement. For the purpose of convenience the petitioner in W.P.No.25199/2012 will be referred as the 'workman' and the petitioner in W.P.No.17466/2012 will be referred as the 'management'.

(2.) Material facts of the case are that the workman remained absent from duty with effect from 14.01.2003 without obtaining prior sanction. A call letter along with articles of charge dated 24.02.2003 was issued by the management to the workman alleging unauthorized absence with effect from 14.01.2003 till that date. The workman did not submit any reply. The disciplinary authority ordered for a disciplinary enquiry and the workman was subjected to disciplinary proceeding. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 13.02.2004, in which it was concluded that the workman is guilty of the charge leveled against him. The workman was furnished with a copy of enquiry report along with a show-cause notice dated 23.04.2004. The workman had remained unauthorizedly absent to duty earlier also. No reply having been submitted by the workman, the disciplinary authority accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, passed an order dated 21.04.2004 and dismissed the workman from service with immediate effect.

(3.) A dispute having arisen, the Government of Karnataka made a reference under S.10(1)(c) of I.D. Act, 1947 to the Labour Court at Mysore for adjudication. The points referred for adjudication are the following: