Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs Apsar Ahmed

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Rejection of the petitioner''s Serial Application No. 498 of 2012 in ID No. 148 of 2005 by order dated 5-11-2012 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, is called in question in this petition. Petitioner-Road Transport Corporation, is said to have floated a notification inviting applications for appointment of ''Driver-cum-conductor'', which when responded by the respondent, amongst others, was selected in accordance with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 following which was asked to undergo training, which the respondent accepted and during that period of training, remained unauthorisedly absent, resulting in the removal of his name from the select list by order dated 27-4-2012.

Petitioner, in compliance with the Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''Act''), filed an application in the pending Industrial Dispute No. 148 of 2005, which was registered as Serial Application No. 498 of 2012 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, seeking approval of the order of removal of the respondent, in which he was arraigned as the opposite party and though served with notice, remained absent and was placed ex parte. Petitioner examined the Establishment Superintendent as A.W. 1 and marked 31 documents. The Industrial Tribunal, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, observing that mere unauthorised absence does not amount to misconduct, unless it is proved to be deliberate or intentional, applied the same to the facts of the case that the respondent-workman had given a representation Ex. A. 22 and medical certificate-Ex. A. 6, dated 4-10-2011, to hold that the respondent-workman was suffering from ill health and therefore not unauthorised absence and charge-sheet-cum-show-cause notice did not amount to misconduct under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 and accordingly by order impugned, rejected the serial application.

In almost similar though not identical circumstances, this Court in ''Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v H.N. Raghu'' in W.P. No. 37444 of 2013 by order dated 11-9-2013, Annexure-F, set aside the order rejecting Serial Application No. 497 of 2012 in ID No. 148 of 2005. By applying the decision in Krushnakant B. Parmar''s case and remitted the proceeding for fresh consideration. For the very same reasons as are recorded therein, this petition is also allowed. The order impugned is quashed and the proceeding remitted to the Industrial Tribunal concerned for a fresh consideration, after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in W.P. No. 37444 of 2013.