The Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs Shri V. Ramachandra

Ram Mohan Reddy

In the earlier round of litigation between the parties, the adjudication over the industrial dispute relating to termination of service of the respondent -coductor-cum-driver in the petitioner-road transport corporation, resulted in quashing of the award and remitting the proceeding to the labour Court to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in W.A. 301/2009, dated 21.10.2009, Annexure - E.

On remand, the First Additional Labour Court by award dated 19.02.2010 in I.D. No. 12/ 2006, old no.61/2004, set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages, however, imposed the punishment of with holding three annual increments with cumulative effect by modifying the order of dismissel Hence, this petition by the Rood Transport Corporation.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, undoubtedly, the award does not animate consideration over the contents of Exhibit M7, vis-�-vis, the evidence marshaled in the enquiry by the petitioner-corporation so as to answer the question whether the allegations set-out in Exhibit - M7 are established, based upon which a finding could be recorded over the perversity of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

The Labour Court though held the misconduct proved, nevertheless, invoked its discretion u/s - 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. In other words, the Labour Court did not comply with the direction issued by the Division Bench to reconsider the contents of the Exhibit - M7, while recording its findings over perversity of findings of the Enquiry Officer.

The methodology and procedure adopted by the Labour Court in invoking Section - 11A of Industrial Disputes Act cannot but be characterised as perverse, since it is contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Naravade etc., .

Suffice it to state that the award impugned suffers from non-application of mind and noncompliance with the direction issued in W.A. 301/2009; hence calls for interference.

In the result, the petition & allowed. The award impugned is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh in the light of the observations made in W.A. No.301/2009 and to pass an award strictly in accordance with law after extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Since the parties are represented by the learned counsel, they are directed to be present before the First Additional Labour Court on 22.12.2011 whence the labour Court is directed to hear the learned counsel without adjournment, and pass an award immediately thereafter.