AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award doted 29.1.2010 in I.D.458/2006 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore directing reinstatement of Respondent with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Respondent was a driver cum conductor in the Petitioner-Corporation. Subsequently, the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent was elected member of Malur Gram Panchayat and by suppressing the same, secured employment in the Petitioner''s corporation. For this misconduct, Articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and an order of penalty removing the Respondent from service came to be passed on 03.11.2004. Aggrieved by this order of penalty the Respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court by way of reference u/s 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act. On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following three points for its consideration:
i) Whether the domestic enquiry held against the first party by the second party is fair and proper?
ii) Whether the dismissal of the first party from service is justified?
iii) To what relief, die first party is entitled?
On preliminary issue relating to domestic enquiry Petitioner examined one witness as M.W.1 and got marked Ex. M1 to M10. Respondent examined himself as W.W. 1 and got marked one document as Ex. W 1. The labour Court by order dated 6.9.2008 held the domestic order as fair and proper. Thereafter Respondent examined himself as WW. 1 and also another witness as WW. 2. The Labour Court on reappreciation of the evidence on record held that Respondent tendered his resignation on 1.1.2001 as per Ex. W 1 and thereafter he has not participated in the meetings of the Grampanchayat. On considering this evidence on record, the Labour Court held that the charge levelled against the Respondent as not proved. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that they will not press for back wages in the event Petitioner reinstating the Respondent. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is placed on record. To this extent the impugned award requires to be quashed in so far as it relates to grant of 50% back wages.
For the reasons stated above, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned award directing reinstatement of Respondent with continuity of service is hereby affirmed.
iii) The award in so far as it relates to grant of 50% back wages is hereby quashed.
iv) Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.