DYAMANNA S/O BASAVANTAPPA Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a conductor in the respondent Corporation. He was on duty conducting a bus on 01.04.1998. He remitted to the Corporation the cash collection of Rs.2,190/-, out of Rs.2,763/-, being the cash collection of 01.04.1998, while on duty. The balance amount of Rs.573.75 was remitted by the petitioner on 06.04.1998. On a complaint filed under section 406 of IPC, the petitioner was arrested and was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. He remained absent to the duty unauthorisedly for 40 days from January 1998 to March 1998. Consequently, an article of charge dated 30.05.1998 was issued and the petitioner was kept under an order of suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner submitted reply and denied the charge. The disciplinary authority, not satisfied with the reply, appointed an enquiry officer on 02.07.1998. After holding disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 10.02.1999, a copy of which was furnished to the petitioner along with a show cause notice dated 23.02.1999. Petitioner was also served with another show cause notice, furnishing the history sheet of past misconducts. No reply was submitted. The disciplinary authority considering the disciplinary enquiry record and finding that the charged misconduct has been established, passed an order dated 04.05.1999 and dismissed the petitioner from service.

(2.) The petitioner filed a claim statement under section 10(4-A) of I.D. (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987) Act, 1947 in KID No.89/1999 in the Labour Court at Hubli. The management filed a counter statement. Considering the record, the Labour Court by an award dated 30.09.2002, dismissed the claim statement. The petitioner filed W.P.No.41272/2004 assailing the said award. The said writ petition was allowed in part and the case was remitted to the Laobur Court to decide the same in accordance with law. Before the Labour Court the petitioner examined Dr.H.Y. Jogannavar as WW.2 and marked Ex.W1. Considering the rival contentions, finding the petition to be devoid of merit, was rejected by an award dated 06.05.2009. Assailing the said award, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri. Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar, learned advocate, contended that the petitioner on account of compelling circumstances could not remit the cash in the Depot after completion of his duty on 01.04.1998. He submitted that the petitioner's daughter having recovered from illness, he remitted major portion of the revenue collection to the Corporation on 03.04.1998 and balance amount on 06.04.1998. He submitted that the reason for non remittance of the collection being genuine and bona fide, the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the matter in the correct perspective and rejection of claim statement being illegal, warrants interference. Alternatively, learned counsel contended that the Labour Court has failed to exercise the power vested in it under section 11-A of the Act, which has resulted in injustice to the petitioner.