COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPTD. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY Vs. JAVARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Puttaiah when appointed as Peon by an order of the Administrator, Cauvery Basin Project, Mysore, a post held by the then Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and he posted to work in the office of the Asst. Director, Land Development Authority, Hunsur. The order dated 12 -8 -1981 transferring Puttaiah to work at Hunsur was not obeyed and Puttaiah remained unauthorized absence and consequently by order dated 31 -7 -1995 was dismissed from service, with retrospective effect from 13 -8 -1991, after disciplinary proceedings and holding of a domestic enquiry on the charge of unauthorized absence and for not having reported to duty at the place of transfer. That order when called in question before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ('the KAT' for short) on the premise that Puttaiah was a Government Servant was rejected recording a finding that the Land Development Authority was not a department of the State, which led to filing writ petition wherein the Division Bench directed the said Puttaiah to initiate conciliation proceedings, for a reference of the Industrial Dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There afterwards the State Government is said to have referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Mysore, registered as Reference No. 98/2008, where parties filed their respective pleadings following which issues were framed and a preliminary issue over the validity of the departmental enquiry was answered in the affirmative holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and a further finding that Puttaiah having failed to report to duty at the place of transfer unauthorisedly absent. In other words, the Labour Court held that the misconduct proved. However, the Labour Court having noticed that Puttaiah served the organization for 17 long years and was reported to have died on 2 -8 -2003 while the industrial dispute was at the instance of the widow, held that the termination from service was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved and modified the order of dismissal to one of compulsory retirement entitling the legal representatives to all service benefits and other terminal monetary benefits as well as pension, if any, by award dated 18 -7 -2012. Hence, this petition by the authority. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned.

(2.) THE short question for consideration in this petition is:

(3.) BE that as it may, regard being had to the facts of the case, more appropriately that Puttaiah under a genuine belief that he was a Government Servant since the Divisional Commissioner had issued the order of appointment, in the year 1974, had questioned the order of transfer as well as the order of dismissal before the K.A.T. under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, ends of justice would be met by modifying the award in entitling the respondents to service benefits and terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits, if any, from 12 -8 -1991 i.e., the date of order of transfer which was disobeyed. Petition is allowed in part. Award of the Labour Court stands modified as noticed supra and in all other respects remains unaltered.