Manjegowda vs The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Chikmagalur Division Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Chikmagalur Division Vs Manjegowda Adult represented by General Secretary KSRTC Staff and Workers Union

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—W.P. No. 41447/2013 is filed by the workman while W.P. No. 1272/2013 is filed by the Road Transport Corporation calling in question the award dated 19.2.2011 in Ref. No. 24/2004 of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. The workman has challenged the award insofar as it relates to confirming the order of the Corporation denying the annual increment from the year 1996 to 1999, while the Road Transport Corporation has called in the question the very same award insofar as it relates to the direction to pay increment for the year 2000-01.

A bare perusal of the reasons, findings and conclusion at paragraph 8 of the award in question, discloses neither reasons, nor findings, except conclusion. The Industrial Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon the industrial dispute when referred to it by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If after the adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal finds that there are reasons by which the reference deserves to be rejected, then it is required to assign such reasons, findings and record its conclusion.

In the instant case, a perusal of sub-paragraph 1 of paragraph 8 of the award impugned the order dated 6.6.1995 of the Corporation declining to grant increment for the year 1996-97, is confirmed in the absence of reasons and findings. So also sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 8 does not indicate reasons over confirmation of the order dated 15.9.1995 directing withholding one increment for two years. Yet again, as regards denial of increment for the year 2000-01, the fact that the workman was absent from service for a period of 562 days, i.e., from 13.4.1999 to 27.10.2000, the parties having not placed on record relevant materials, the reasons, findings and the conclusion arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal cannot but be characterised as perverse. In the result, writ petitions are allowed. The award impugned is quashed and the proceeding remitted for considering afresh after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties and recording evidence, both oral and documentary, and to pass an award strictly in accordance with law. Parties since represented by the learned Counsel are directed to be present before the Industrial Tribunal on 25.10.2013.