The Divisional Controller KSRTC vs Sri B. Dhanapalaksha Assistant Store Keeper K.S.R.T.C.

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 dated 8.12.2009 in I.D. No. 78/2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli.

Respondent is an employee of the Petitioner Corporavion. On 20.6.2001 Respondent was transferred and on the same day he was relieved and further he was directed to report for duty at transferred place immediately. Accordingly, on 21.6.2001 Respondent reported for duty. Since no breathing time was given, Respondent could not hand over the charge and consequently, he reported the same to the concerned authorities as per Ex. W 3. Despite this, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and an order penalty of reducing the basic pay by two incremental stages permanently was passed. Aggrieved by this order of penalty, the Respondent raised a dispute before the Tribunal u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act''). On the basis of pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following issues and additional issue for its consideration:

i) Whether the claimant is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947?

ii) Whether the institution in which the claimant is working is an industry, Board or Industrial Establishment as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act?

iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get any relief u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal. Act or under Article 226 of Indian Constitution?

iv) Whether the Respondent management is justified in reducing the basic pay of the first party claimant into two in incremental stages permanently by its order dated 30.1.2002?

v) What order?

Additional Issue

Whether the enquiry held against the first party is fair and proper?

The Labour Court vide order dated 6.7.2007 held the preliminary issue relating to domestic enquiry in negative. Thereafter the Respondent examined himself as WW. 1 and got marked Ex. W l to W8 and Petitioner examined one witness as MW. 1 and got marked Ex. M 1 to M 15.

The Labour Court on appreciation of pleadings oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned award and set aside the order of penalty. Hence this writ petition.

The material on record discloses that on 20.6.2001 Respondent was transferred, on the same day he was relieved and further he was directed to report for duty immediately. In obedience of this command the Respondent reported for duty on 21.6.2001. Immediately, thereafter as per Ex. W 3, Respondent reported to his higher authorities stating that he could not hand over the charge since no breathing time was given to him. This cannot be treated as misconduct on the part of Respondent. The Tribunal on proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record rightly concluded that the Respondent has not committed any misconduct. This conclusion of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is supported by evidence on record. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed without reference to Respondent.