The Chief Traffic Manager Bangalore Metropolitian Transport Corporation Division vs Ameer Jan Since Deceased by His L.Rs., Smt Parveen Taj, Mohammed Saleha, Mohammed Zameer and Nageen Fathima Ameer Jan Since Deceased by His L.Rs., Smt Parveen Taj, Mohammed Saleha, Mohammed Zameer and Nageen Fathima Vs The Chief Traffic Manager Bangalore Metropolitian Transport Corporation Division

Ram Mohan Reddy

Since, common question of law and that of fact arise for decision making, hence with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by thia order.

W.P. No. 22506/2010 is by the employer Road Transport Corporation, while W.P. No. 8707/2011 is by the workman calling in question the award dated 12.12.2009, in I.D. No. 114/2006 (Old No. 47/2004], of the 1st Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The employer has challenged the award directing reinstatement with continuity of service while the legal heirs of the workman have called in question the sward insofar as it relates to denying back wages and withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The workman, a driver, in the Road Transport Corporation is reported to have died on 26.7.2010 during the pendancy of this petition (sincs W.P. NO. 22506/2010 is filed on 22.7.2010), the (sic) Rs. being the widow and children were brought on record.

The examination of the award impugned does not (sic) recording a finding or conclusion over the misconduct of unauthorised absence of the driver, for which, disciplinary proceeding was (sic) an articles of charge a domestic enquiry was held, loading to the order of dismissal from service. In the absence of recording a finding on the charge, she labour Court was not justified in allowing the reference by interfering with the punishment of dismissal so as to modified the same to one of a lesser punishment in exercise of extraordinary discretion u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In the result, W.P. No. 22506/2010 is allowed. The award impugned is quashed and the proceding remitted to the labour Court for consideration afresh, after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, to pass an award strictly in accordance with law.

W.P. No. 8707/2011 does not survive for consideration.

Since, parties are represented by learned counsel, are directed to be present before the labour Court on. It is needless to state that, if the parties co-operate, the labour Court may conclude the proceeding before the and of February, 2012.