L. SRINIVAS Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 16.11.2011 passed in KID No.16/2011 insofar as the Labour Court not granting the continuity of service for all other purposes including the consequential benefits and also contending that the alternate arrangement as imposed by the Labour Court is too onerous, though a modification has been made by the Labour Court.

(2.) The petitioner raised a dispute against the dismissal order dated 15.10.2010 seeking that the petitioner be reinstated into service with all benefits. The dispute was registered in KID No.16/2011. The respondent herein had opposed the prayer as put forth by the petitioner. The Labour Court after having considered the matter, though has found that the order of dismissal is disproportionate, has on setting-aside the same, imposed the alternate punishment of withholding of four increments. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) In that light having heard the learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of the petition papers including the Award would indicate that the Labour Court at the outset considered the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and found the same to be in accordance with law through its order dated 02.09.2011. Thereafter while considering the matter to take note as to whether there is any perversity in the findings as rendered by the Enquiry Officer insofar as the merits of the action taken against the petitioner, the Labour Court though has arrived at the conclusion that there was no justification for the petitioner to remain unauthorisedly absent, has also taken into consideration the previous record and in that light has arrived at the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met if an alternate punishment of withholding of four increments is imposed after reinstatement.