MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION Vs. SHANKARAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation which has assailed award dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Hubballi, in KID No.123 of 2012, a copy of which is at Annexure 'C'.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent was appointed as a Trainee Conductorcum- Driver in the petitioner Corporation on 05.12.2008. He was dismissed from service after holding an enquiry on 20.09.2010. It appears that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty. A show cause notice dated 28.04.2010 was issued stating that he was absent from duty from 03.09.2009 till 28.04.2010 without informing the concerned authorities nor with the permission from the Corporation. A reply was given to the same. Not being satisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted and subsequently on 20.09.2010, the disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer dismissed the respondent from service.

(3.) According to the respondent, he met with an accident and that on account of electrical shock, his right hand was damaged as his blood circulation was disrupted and subsequently, his right hand was amputated. He had made a representation stating that he was unable to work as a driver-cum-conductor and requested for an alternative posting. According to the respondent, he took treatment at District Hospital, Gadag and Vivekananda General Hospital, Hubballi wherein he was admitted as an in-patient. He submitted the medical bills for reimbursement but the same were not accepted by the Corporation. According to the respondent, the Corporation had discriminated against him by removing him from service on the ground of unauthorized absence, when in fact he had suffered a serious disability. On the basis of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity), respondent sought for allotment of alternative duties on reinstatement. He contested his dismissal from service by contending that it was a disproportionate punishment. In the circumstances, respondent raised a dispute and sought a reference under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act' for the sake of brevity) by challenging order of dismissal dated 20.09.2010.