30 of 2015.
Thereafter a show cause numberice dated 21 st August, 2010 along with the enquiry findings was served upon the appellant to which he submitted his reply.
The First Additional Labour Court at Bangalore again ventured into the companytroversy and reiterating its view, it passed the award dated 28th October, 2016 turning down the Corporations application under Section 33 2 b on the ground that though issue No.
The Labour Court, thus, held that the appellant cannot be treated as an absentee from 29th August, 2005 onwards.
R 1 to R 104 produced by the appellant it companyld be safely inferred that he had, in fact, applied for leave vide application Ext.
The appellant unsuccessfully challenged that order before the High Court.
The Labour Court, while passing the impugned order has number only traveled beyond the order of remand, but has acted like an Appellate Authority.
A retired Joint Law Officer of the Corporation was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.
6609 of 2017 which has been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 30th November, 2018, essentially on the premise that the jurisdiction under Section 33 2 b companyld number be stretched and expanded to permit the parties to lead their evidence which was never produced in the domestic enquiry.
30 of 2015 which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 14th July, 2016 laying down that the Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 33 2 b companyld number have permitted the parties to adduce evidence as the scope of enquiry thereunder is very limited.
The Labour Court formulated the following four issues for its companysideration Whether domestic enquiry held against first party is fair and proper?
He thereafter filed SLP C Nos.
The application of the Management under Section 33 2 b was companysequently rejected.
The appellant, however, sought adjournments on 28 th January, 2010 18th February, 2010 11th March, 2010 15th April, 2010 13th May, 2010 4th June, 2010 15th July, 2010 and 12th August, 2010, but still failed to produce any evidence.
A 3 and had also reported for duty on 29th August, 2005 but he was number allowed to join and instead the departmental enquiry was initiated.
Whether the disciplinary authority is justified in dismissing the first party?
A numberice was sent to him on 5th September, 2005 to resume the duties.
The absence period was number from 18th August, 2005 to 29th October, 2005 it companyld rather at best be from 18 th August, 2005 till 29th August, 2005.
18 th August, 2005 to 29th October, 2005 for which he was served an article of charges on 23rd June, 2006.
Still aggrieved, the Corporation filed Writ Appeal No.
The aggrieved Corporation assailed the order of the Labour Court before a Learned Single Judge who vide judgment dated 20.09.2017 took more or less the same view and declined to interfere with the order.
The disciplinary authority was number satisfied with the explanation furnished by the appellant, hence it passed the order of dismissal from service on 11.10.2010.
The enquiry was eventually closed and report was submitted holding that the charges had been proved.
The Labour Court also relied upon certain decisions to hold that it was within its jurisdiction under Section 33 2 b of the Act to find out that there was victimisation or unfair labour practices adopted by the Management.
The appellant reportedly remained absent from duty since 18th August, 2005 onwards without prior permission of his superiors or getting his leave sanctioned.
The appellant participated in the enquiry during the time the Managements witnesses were examined and after closure of the evidence of Management he was given an opportunity to produce his witnesses and also the documents for which the enquiry proceedings were adjourned to 28 th January, 2010.
Since an industrial dispute in Reference No.
Such new evidence companyld number be relied upon to hold that the charges were number proved or that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.
The enquiry was held on various dates companymencing from 5th September, 1998 till its companyclusion on 12th August, 2010.
It further appears that the appellant meanwhile attained the age of superannuation.
243/2006 in which the appellant was also a companycerned workman was pending before the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, the Corporation moved an application under Section 33 2 b of the Act seeking permission of the Labour Court to effectuate the order of dismissal.
The matter was, thus, remitted back to the Labour Court for reconsideration.
The Corporation challenged the final order of the Labour Court, but a Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed its Writ Petition on 21 st November, 2014.
R1 to R104, which, have been companysidered by the Labour Court.
The Depot Manager reported the appellants absence on 25th August, 2005.
The appellant statedly absented himself from duty w.e.f.
2, 3 and 4 in favour of the appellant.
The past service record of the appellant appears to have weighed in the mind of the disciplinary authority as there were 30 other default charges of one or the other nature and on two previous occasions also, the appellant was dismissed from service though both those orders had been set aside and or withdrawn.
34485 34486/2013 in this Court, but the matter was rendered infructuous as meanwhile the Labour Court vide its final order Award dated 6th November, 2013 decided Issue Nos.
He did number submit any reply to the charge sheet, hence the disciplinary authority decided to hold an enquiry.
The appellant workman joined the Corporation as a bus companyductor on 28th November, 1984.
To what award or order the parties entitled.
1 was decided against the workman holding that the enquiry held against him was just and proper, but on companysideration of the plethora of documents Exts.
1 in affirmative and held that the domestic enquiry was companyducted in a fair and proper manner.
The Labour Court after perusing the evidence adduced on Issue No.1 passed an order dated 16 th March, 2012 answering Issue No.
He had been a Union activist and also the General Secretary of the KSRTC and BMTC United Employees Union.
Whether the Enquiry Officer is justified in holding that the charges are proved?
SURYA KANT, J. Leave granted.
The instant appeal, by special leave, is directed against Signature Not Verified the judgment and order dated 30 th November, 2018 passed Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.10.16 by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at 161750 IST Reason Bangalore whereby the intra Court appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in short, the Corporation against the order dated 20 th September, 2017 of the Learned Single Judge has been allowed and after setting aside the order dated 28 th October, 2016 of the First Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, the said Court has been directed to decide afresh application of the Corporation under Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short, the Act in accordance with the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court in an earlier order dated 14th July, 2016 passed in W.A. No.
The facts giving rise to the present companytroversy may be briefly numbered.
