LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-199

MALLIKARJUN Vs. MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC

Decided On March 21, 2018
MALLIKARJUN Appellant
V/S
MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the order of the Labour Court which is challenged in Ref. No. 51/2014 dated 22.07.2016.

(2.) The records disclose that the petitioner was removed from service by the respondent after holding an enquiry vide orders dated 27.01.2005. The petitioner was working as a Driver and due to his long unauthorized absence the enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service. The Government has made a reference of the petition of the employee u/S 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Under this order No. KAE 108 IDG 2014 dated 03.09.2014 by formulating two points for consideration of the Labour Court. There is no need for this Court to go in detail with regard to the factual aspects or merits or demerits of the case for the simple reason that the Labour Court after considering the above said two points of reference has definitely came to the conclusion that the order of termination or dismissal passed by the respondent without permission or approval by the competent authority as per the statutory report u/S 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act is bad in law. Therefore, when the Court holds that the said order is against the statute and the order of dismissal itself is non est, in such an eventuality the Labour Court gets no jurisdiction to step into the shoes of the management and to modify the penalty or impose any alternative punishment to the employee, which has been done in this case erroneously by the Labour Court.

(3.) The Labour Court having held the termination of the employee as illegal and it is not in accordance with law, but wrongly imposed an alternative punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect.