Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs H. Haitha

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The concurrent findings of the Labour Court, D.K. Mangalore, in IDA No. 14/2005 dated 29.3.2010 and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th October 2010 passed in W.P. No. 26825 of 2010 is called in question in this Intra-Court appeal.

Heard the Counsel for the parties.

The Respondent was appointed as a driver in the appellant-Corporation. His services were terminated w.e.f. 18.6.2005 on the ground that ha had produced fake School Leaving Certificate. The order of dismissal was questioned by the Respondent by raising a dispute before the Labour Court, Mangalore.

The Labour Court after conducting an enquiry came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the appellant was not fair and proper and further held that order of dismissal is bad in law and that the Respondent is entitled for an order of reinstatement with 25% back wages.

The order of the Labour Court was questioned by the appellant herein by filing a writ petition before the Learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after re-appreciating the entire evidence dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

Challenging the concurrent findings, the present appeal is filed.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Labour Court has committed an error in ordering of reinstatement with back wages of 25%. According to him, the evidence of MW 1 has not been properly appreciated by the Labour Court. The findings of the Labour Court in holding that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not fair and proper is also incorrect. She lastly contends the learned Single Judge has committed an error in affirming the order of the Labour Court without examining the evidence of MW 1, who was examined before the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, she requests the Court to allow the appeal.

Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge, in order to interfere with the same as the scope of the appeal is very limited. According to him, the Labour Court is justified in holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. He further contends that no evidence was let in by the appellant before the Labour Court to substantiate the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard the Counsel for the parties, we have to consider whether any error is committed by the learned Single Judge, in order to interfere with his order and whether the order of the Labour Court can be set aside by this Court in an intra Court appeal.

Admittedly, the Respondent herein produced the School Leaving Certificate which bears the seal and signature of the Head Mistress. The question is that whether it is a fake or genuine has to be proved in evidence before the Domestic enquiry. The appellant has relied upon the evidence of the Head Mistress by name, Padmaja, who was not the author of the School Leaving Certificate produced by the Respondent. In all fairness, it was for the appellant to summon the person who issued the School Leaving Certificate in order to ascertain whether such document is genuine or fake. On perusal of the evidence of the Head Mistress, Padmaja, it is clear to the Court that she has not even verified whether the Respondent was a student of the said School or not. She is not acquainted with the signature of the previous Head Mistress. In such circumstances, it is not open for the appellant to contend that the signature found on the School Leaving Certificate produced by the Respondent was forged. We could have appreciated the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, provided the appellant had summoned the person who has issued the School Leaving Certificate. We could have even appreciated the arguments of the appellant, provided the entire School Admission register had been summoned to ascertain whether really the respondent had studied in the said school or not. When the present Head Mistress has admitted that she has not seen the School records and that she has not verified whether the respondent was a student of the said School or not, the Labour Court is justified in holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Accordingly, we do not see any merits in the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant. However, we are of the view that awarding of back wages of 25% from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement is bad in law since no evidence is let in to show that the respondent has not worked any where. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed to the extent of setting aside the order of dismissal. However, we set aside the back wages awarded by the Labour Court to an extent of 25% from the date of dismissal till the award passed by the Labour Court. We direct the appellant herein to re-instate the respondent within two weeks from to-day and that respondent is entitled for continuity of service and wages of 25% from the date of the order of the Labour Court till reinstatement.