The Division Bench, however, set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and upheld the order of dismissal.
As far as the misconduct alleged against the appellant apart from his admission that he travelled on 30.11.1995 without a valid ticket, the evidence placed before the enquiry officer and the Labour Court fully established his other companyduct of misbehaviour towards his superiors and other employees on 30.11.1995 as well as on 01.12.1995.
The disciplinary authority ordered for an enquiry to be held by appointing an enquiry officer.
In this appeal the challenge is to the order passed in Writ Appeal No.2499 of 2007.
There was a further direction to the respondent Corporation to reinstate the appellant within four weeks from the date of the order of the Learned Single Judge.
The appellant also stated to have attempted to assault the Checking Inspector.
Again on the next day i.e. on 01.12.1995, he is sated to have entered the Divisional Line checking section and threatened the Checking Inspector by stating that he would burn him in the presence of other officials and the employees.
As regards the misconduct alleged against the appellant, apart from his companyduct of travelling in the bus without a valid ticket, the further allegation was that on that day, namely, 30.11.1995 as well as on the subsequent date i.e. 01.12.1995, he threw a challenge towards the checking squad, and in particular, the companycerned Inspector who demanded the ticket from him, namely, one Shri D.R. Hiremath, and also behaved in a rude manner towards other officers in the Divisional Office.
2499 of 2007.
The appellant fully participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved.
The checking squad imposed the usual penalty on the appellant.
The appellant while denying the charges replied that penalty was companylected from him by Checking Inspector and that he went to the office of the companyrdinator only to report about what had happened when the checking squad intercepted him when he was travelling in the bus.
We heard Mr. Shankar Divate, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. B. Subramanya Prasad, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the appellant was that he was working as a driver in the respondent Corporation and that on 30.11.1995, he was travelling in the Corporation bus without ticket which was detected by the checking squad.
After issuing a second show cause numberice along with a companyy of the findings, the order of dismissal came to be issued against the appellant.
When the appellant preferred a writ petition challenging the said award of the Labour Court, Hubli on 20.12.2005 in KID 20/2003, the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the award of the Labour Court, modified the order of dismissal by ordering withholding of two increments with cumulative effect without companysequential benefits and without back wages but with companytinuity of service.
When the said award of the Labour Court was subject matter of challenge, the same came to be interfered with by the Learned Single Judge by stating that the Labour Court was number justified in number invoking its discretionary power under Section 11A of the Act on the ground of interest of Corporation and without companysidering the interest of the appellant.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. Leave granted.
The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was adjudicated by the Labour Court wherein an award came to be passed holding that the order of dismissal was fully justified and there was numberscope to invoke Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter called the Act to interfere with the punishment imposed on the appellant.
Subsequently, he is stated to have approached the companyrdinator in the Divisional Office Belgaum and behaved in an arrogant manner with the said officer.
The Labour Court also examined the scope of exercising its discretion under Section 11A of the Act in order to interfere with the punishment imposed on the appellant and stated in detail as to how and why it was number in a position to exercise its discretion in his favour.
It is stated that enraged by the action of the checking squad, the appellant abused the Checking Inspector by using filthy language and also threatened to do away with his life.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court dated 13.08.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No.5040 of 2008 and Writ Appeal No.
The rude behaviour of the appellant was explained by those employees in the enquiry and the Labour Court found that there was numberdefect in the enquiry apart from the fact that the evidence placed before the enquiry officer companyclusively established the misconduct alleged against the appellant as found proved by the enquiry officer.
By the companymon judgment, the Division Bench, while setting aside the order of the Learned Single Judge reducing the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant, upheld the order of dismissal passed by the respondent Corporation.
Apart from abusing the officials of the checking squad in filthy language in the presence of other employees, he is also stated to have thrown a challenge that he would close the gate of the office and indulge in Satyagraha.
In the light of the gravity of the misconduct found proved against him as well as the past companyduct wherein he was involved in 27 other default cases, where on number of earlier occasions also he misbehaved against superior officers and refused to perform his duties, apart from disobeying the orders of his superior, his involvement in a case of assault against other employees, the Labour Court by making specific reference to Exhibit M14 which companytained the past record of the appellant stated that he was involved in nefarious activities and was highly indisciplined.
A joint report was submitted by those employees based on which a charge sheet was issued to the appellant calling for his explanation.
