CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER Vs. C. PUTTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the Award dated 29.02.2012 in Reference No. 20/2011.

(2.) The respondent was working as a Conductor in the petitioner - Corporation. On the allegation of remaining unauthorizedly absent between the periods from 05.10.2005 to 21.02.2007, the petitioner - Corporation having held appropriate proceedings had dismissed the respondent from service with effect from 08.09.2007. The respondent had raised a dispute in Reference No. 20/2011. The Labour Court through its Award dated 29.02.2012 on taking note that though the dismissal was at a point when the main dispute between the workman of the petitioner -Corporation and the petitioner - Corporation was pending in I.D. No. 148/2005, no approval was obtained as contemplated under Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, was of the opinion that the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. In that view, the Labour Court having also taken note that the workman had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010, ordered that the continuity of service from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation be taken into consideration and the benefits be paid. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said Award is before this Court in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the Award would contend that such consideration by the Labour Court is not justified inasmuch as the Labour Court ought to have adverted to the merits of the contention and in that light the charge as alleged against the respondent - workman should have been taken into consideration and thereafter a conclusion ought to have been reached. In that regard the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, NEKRTC v. Shivasharanappa 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1135 .