GANGANNA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.K.B.Narayana Swamy, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.G.Narasi Reddy., counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. Sri.G.Narasi Reddy., counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.K.B.Narayana Swamy, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Labour Court.

(2.) The brief facts are these: The first party Ganganna joined the services of the Corporation as a Group-D employee in 1986. He was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service on 18/11/2010 and it was also ordered to recover 25% of Rs.10,90,007.00 from him. The first party preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected. Thereafter, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the conciliation also failed. On failure, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.56/2015. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dtd. 10/1/2018 allowed the petition in part to set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Corporation to reinstate the first party with continuity of service with 25% back wages. Aggrieved by the award, the Corporation preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.52402/2018. This Court vide order dtd. 23/1/2020 remanded the matter to provide an opportunity for the Corporation to adduce evidence before the Labour Court. On remand, the Labour Court vide award dtd. 5/12/2022 set aside the order of dismissal. Since the first party had attained the age of superannuation, his prayer for reinstatement was rejected and the Corporation was directed to pay back wages at the rate of 25%. The workman assailed the award of the Labour Court seeking full back-wages and the Corporation has assailed the award of the Labour Court in these Writ Petitions on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petitions.

(3.) Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel Sri.G.Narasi Reddy., in presenting his arguments submits that the award of the Labour Court is arbitrary and contrary to the facts and material evidence on record. Next, he submits that the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the complaint filed by the workman on the grounds of delay and laches. A further submission is made that the Labour Court has erred in concluding that there is discrimination and victimization in punishing the workman as the co-accused Gopinath, Manager was imposed with a minor punishment. Counsel vehemently contended that as the workman had attained the age of superannuation, the question of paying back wages at the rate of 25% did not arise. He drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-D, the letter written by Ganganna to contend that the workman had admitted the misappropriation and sought time to pay the alleged misappropriation amount by selling his ancestral property. He argued by saying that when the workman himself has admitted the misappropriation, the question of payment of 25% of back wages does not arise. Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. By way of reply, counsel Sri.K.B.Narayana Swamy., Justified the award of the Labour Court. However, he submits that the Labour Court has erred in denying full back-wages to the workman. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.