The proceedings were companyducted following the mandatory provisions of the Corporation C D Regulations, 1971 and affording adequate opportunity to the delinquent workman to defend his case.
While he was companyducting the bus on 12.8.1992, the said bus came to be checked by the checking squad at stage number2 and it was numbericed that the respondent had failed to issue tickets to 6 passengers despite companylection of money, failed to issue tickets to 4 passengers who were travelling from Sanganakal to KEB, Bellary and had number companylected the requisite fare.
Later after hearing the arguments, instead of dismissing the petition, vide order dated 25.3.2003 the Labour Court set aside the termination order dated 18.5.1998 and directed the appellant Management to take the respondent back on the list of badli companyductors.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Management has companye up on appeal before this Court.
The High Court has also erred in taking numbere of the fact that the punishment imposed on the delinquent official was number shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against him companypled with his history and he being a badli companyductor.
The Disciplinary Authority, on re appraisal of the companynected records, came to the companyclusion as of the Inquiry Officer and looking at the nature of the offence and its result passed an order on 18.5.1998 removing the name of the respondent from the list of badli companyductors.
The respondent, however, failed to appear before the Court and accordingly the evidence was taken as closed.
However, the Labour Court held that the respondent was number entitled for any back wages and companytinuity of service.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent approached the Labour Court by filing a petition under section 10 4 A of the Industrial Disputes Karnataka Amendment Act, 1947 challenging the legality and companyrectness of the dismissal order passed against him on 18.5.1998.
The Management preferred writ appeal number1565 of 2004 and urged several grounds for companysideration amongst others.
The Labour Court after issuing process to the parties companycerned by its order dated 2.1.2002 passed an order holding that the enquiry held was fair and proper.
After passing of the preliminary order on issue number1, i.e. whether the domestic enquiry companyducted by the respondent against the claimant is fair and proper, the matter was posted for recording of evidence.
The respondent had closed the stage number3 by keeping single digit blank in respect of Rs.1.25 denomination with an intention to re issue the said denomination tickets in the next trip and the respondent had closed the CWP against the stage number2 except the Rs.1.75 denomination.
The learned Single Judge also companyfirmed the order passed by the Labour Court.
The Division Bench by a companymon order dated 25.2.2005 rejected the writ appeal filed by the Management and also by the respondent, thereby companyfirmed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court.
The Inquiry Officer after having issued numberices to both the parties companyducted a detailed enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the respondent.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and thereby upheld the order passed by the Labour Court.
The appellant Management aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and urged several grounds for companysideration.
We heard Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant Management.
SLP C No.
This appeal is directed against the final order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal number1565 of 2004, wherein Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appeal filed by the appellant herein and ordered accordingly.
16719 of 2005 Dr. AR.
However, numberody has appeared for the respondent.
During his companyrse of employment as badli companyductor between the period from 1992 to 1995, he had an unedifying history of misconduct and had been punished by imposing fine.
The sole respondent was served through the Court on 10.1.2005.
This Court on 22.8.2005 issued numberice to the sole respondent and interim stay was granted in the meantime.
The respondent workman also approached the High Court by filing writ petition.
The Disciplinary authority directed holding of an enquiry into the articles of charge in terms of the Corporation C D Regulations, 1971 by appointing an Inquiry Officer.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
The respondent was in the employment of the appellant Corporation as a badli companyductor .
