DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC Vs. M RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the award dated 23rd July 2012 in I.D.No.10/2010 of the III Additional Labout Court, Bangalore, Annexure-B allowing the petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act'), setting aside the order dated 14.10.2009 terminating the services of the respondent workman and directing reinstatement into service with full backwages; continuity of service and all consequential benefits, has presented this petition.

(2.) Respondent a Conductor in the Road Transport Corporation remained absent from duty w.e.f. 24.10.2006 for a period of 157 days and did not respond to the call notice issued by the Depot Manager, which led to issue of Articles of Charge with a show cause notice, to which too, there was no response, resulting in the appointment of an Inquiring Authority, who held a domestic enquiry, extended opportunity of hearing to the respondent workman and submitted a report holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record held the charges proved and issued a show cause notice, which too was not responded, leading to the order dated 14.10.2009 of dismissal from service.

(3.) Respondent workman filed a claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Act, alleging illegal termination from service and that, the order was nonest, for not obtaining the prior approval of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.148/2005, a dispute relating to charter of demands in which the respondent is a concerned workman, by filing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. That petition was opposed by filing statement of objections interalia denying the assertions and contending that the industrial dispute in I.D.No.148/2005 was not concerning the respondent. In the premise of pleading of parties, the III Additional Labour Court framed as many as five issues. Parties did not lead evidence. Issue No.1 relating to validity of the domestic enquiry was answered in the negative by the Labour Court holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafterwards, petitioner is said to have examined two witnesses as MWs-1 and 2 and marked Exs.M1 to M7, while the respondent workman was examined as WW-1 and marked Exs.W1 to W7.