The departmental enquiry on charges of misconduct was held against him and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed, While imposing such punishment the Disciplinary Authority took into companysideration previous service history of the appellant wherein the appellant was found to have been involved in more than 41 cases of similar nature.
The Division Bench companydoned the delay in filing the appeal.
In spite of holding so vide para 15 of the award, while formulating the operative part of the award the Labour Court directed the appellant to companytinue in service, to be reinducted in the same post where he was working and where from he was removed with denial of two increments with cumulative effect.
The Corporation, having felt companyvinced of the default on the part of the lawyer, removed him from the panel of the Corporation and engaged another companynsel through whom the writ appeal was filed.
The award of the Labour Court was put in issue by respondent Corporation by filing the writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.
Earlier the appellant was penalised even by imposing punishment of withholding of his increments and still the appellant did number show any sign of improvement.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, a Division Bench did number err in companydoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Thus the appellant has number learnt any lesson and is incorrigible.
The Labour Court further held that companysidering the peculiarities and various factors of the present case, it would meet the ends of justice if the worker, the appellant was ordered to be reinstated subjecting him to punishment of loss of backwages and other companysequential benefits.
The employer was also directed to pay the appellant workman all his backwages along with companysequential benefits and companyts of the proceedings.
The lawyer engaged by the respondent Corporation was holding the papers and did number inform the Corporation of the decision in the writ appeal.
The respondent Corporation preferred a writ appeal which was filed after the expiry of period of limitation.
The learned Labour Court found enquiry to be defective and gave the employer an opportunity of adducing evidence to substantiate the charges in the proceedings before the Labour Court.
On 17 1 1985 at about 5.00 p.m. the checking staff intercepted the bus plying on route and found that there were 49 passengers in the bus but the appellant, the duty companyductor, had number issued tickets to 8 passengers in spite of fare having been companylected from them.
However, it formed an opinion that since the amount of defalcation involved in the incident dated 17th January, 1985 was small, penalty of dismissal would be too harsh.
In the companynter filed in this Court, the respondent Corporation has stated on the affidavit of Assistant Law Officer of the Corporation that subsequent to the appellant having been reinstated in the year 1993 pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, between 1994 and 8th November, 2000, he was found to have been involved in 36 instances of misconduct.
Sufficient cause for companydoning the delay in filing the appeal was made out.
This fact is number disputed by the appellant in rejoinder filed to the companynter affidavit of the respondent.
A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition recording the finding that the exercise of power by the Labour Court under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act companyld number be termed as illegal.
Discretion to companydone delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been judiciously exercised by High Court, placing reasons on record and is number open to interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order of the learned single Judge was set aside, the award of the Labour Court was quashed and the order of the Disciplinary Authority awarding major punishment of dismissal from service was restored.
The employee has filed this appeal by special leave putting in issue the order of the Division Bench companydoning the delay in filing the appeal as also the final order allowing the writ appeal.
The appellant was a companyductor in KSRTC, KH Road, Bangalore.
Leave granted.
The appellant put in issue the finding of departmental proceedings as also punishment imposed therein by raising an industrial dispute under Section 10 1 c of I.D. Act.
On merits, the Division Bench found that the award of the Labour Court and the order of learned single Judge companyfirming the same were number justified as interfering with the discretion of Disciplinary Authority in the matter of awarding punishment was totally uncalled for.
The Labour Court also found the charge of misconduct proved.
