CHANDRAKANTHA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Mr. Chandrakantha, is aggrieved by the award dated 22.06.2017, passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru, whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, and has upheld the dismissal order passed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC for short).

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 111.2004, the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver-cum-conductor by the KSRTC. However, he remained unauthorizedly absent from 15.10.2014 till 26.11.2015, i.e., for over a period of one year. Therefore, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet; a departmental enquiry was conducted. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, by order dated 26.11.2015, the petitioner was dismissed from his service. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said dismissal order, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). However, during the pendency of the dispute before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Labour Court. He neither examined a witness, nor submitted any document in order to buttress his case. On the other hand, the KSRTC did submit nineteen documents, although it did not examine any witness. After going through the documentary evidence submitted by the KSRTC, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim statement of the petitioner. Hence the present petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. M.C. Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that since the petitioner's counsel Mr. MCB had retired from the case, after his retirement, the petitioner had no way of knowing the relevant dates of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Labour Court in order to buttress his case. Hence the fault does not lie with the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to prove his case, the impugned award should be set aside by this Court.