DAVALSAB HUSAINSAB MULLA versus NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 24-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 826 
DAVALSAB HUSAINSAB MULLA 
v. 
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT 
CORPORATION 
. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8487 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.) 
C 
Labour Law: 
Dismissal of workman -
Misconduct -
Workman 
travelling in Corporation Bus without ticket - On being caught, 
misbehaving with the checking squad and threatening the 
0 
Checking Inspector of his life - In disciplinary inquiry charges 
found proved - Past conduct also considered - Order of 
dismissal - Labour Court held the order fully justified - Held: 
Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct found proved 
against the appellant in an enquiry held for that purpose by 
E way of disciplinary procedure prescribed in the relevant rules, 
the conclusion of Labour Court on this aspect cannot be 
assailed. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
F 
s. 11-A - Power of Labour Court to give appropriate relief 
in case of discharge of dismissal of workman - Exercise of 
discretion - Explained - Held: In the instant case, Labour 
Court examined the scope of exercising its discretion u/s. 11 A 
in order to interfere with punishment imposed on appellant -
G Having regard to the factors, referred by Labour Court, it rightly 
declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction uls. 11 A to 
interfere with the punishment of dismissal - However, it is 
open to appellant or his dependants to approach the 
authorities concerned for settlement of any benefits payable 
H 
826 
DAVALSAB HUSAINSAB MULLA v. NORTH WEST KARNATAKA 
827 
ROAD TRANS. CORP. 
under the provisions of the Act as well as under Employees' A 
Pension Scheme, 1995 - Employees' Provident Fund and 
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - s. 6A. 
The appellant, while working as a driver in the 
employment of the respondent Corporation, was found 
8 
to have been travelling in the Corporation bus without 
ticket. The checking squad imposed the usual penalty on 
him, whereupon he abused the Checking Inspector and 
also threatened to do away with his life. He misbehaved 
with other officials also. On the following day, he entered 
C 
the checking section and threatened the Checking 
Inspector to burn him in the presence of the staff. A joint 
report was submitted by the employees leading to 
disciplinary proceedings which culminated in the order 
of his dismissal from service. The appellant raised an 
industrial dispute and the Labour Court passed the award 
D 
holding the dismissal as fully justified. In the writ petition 
filed by the appellant, the single Judge of the High Court 
modified the award of dismissal and ordered withholding 
of two increments with cumulative effect with continuity 
of service but without back wages. The Division Bench, 
E 
however, set aside the order of single Judge and restored 
the award of dismissal as was passed by the Labour 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The Labour Court, while considering the 
issues raised before it as regards the validity of the 
enquiry, examined the procedure followed in the 
domestic enquiry and found no flaw in the same. There 
is also no flaw in the conclusion of the Labour Court, and 
G 
the enquiry held against the appellant was fair and 
proper. [Para 5] [832-E-G] 
1.2. As regards as the misconduct alleged against the 
appellant, apart from his admission that he travelled on 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 30.11.1995 without a valid ticket, his conduct of 
misbehaviour towards his superiors and other 
employees on 30.11.1995 as well as on 01.12.1995 was 
fully established by the evidence placed before the 
enquiry officer and the Labour Court. He also threatened 
s the Checking Inspector of his life. The Labour Court 
found that the evidence conclusively proved the 
misconduct alleged against the appellant. The Labour 
Court also made a specific reference to the past conduct 
of the appellant wherein he was involved in 27 other 
c default cases, and on a number of earlier occasions also 
he misbehaved with superior officers and refused to 
perform his duties, apart from disobeying the orders of 
his superiors, and his involvement in a case of assault 
on other employees. The cumulative effect of the said 
0 facts resulted in the Corporation passing the order of 
dismissal against the appellant. Having regard to the 
gravity of the misconduct found proved against the 
appellant in an enquiry held for that purpose by way of 
disciplinary pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.