LexK.V.S. RAM versus BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 26 A K.V.S. RAM v. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (Civil Appeal No. 412 OF 2015) B JANUARY 14, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Service Law - Misconduct - A/legation that appel/ant- workman secured appointment by producing false/bogus C certificate - Disciplinary proceedings - Termination of appellant-workman - Justification - Held: Not justified, considering the delay in completing the enquiry and the age of appellant and the fact that similarly situated workmen were reinstated with lesser punishment - Appellant accordingly D . ordered to be re-instated in service - Industrial Disputes Act. 1947-s.11A. , Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1.1. In the present case, as pointed out by the Labour Court, there was no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in completing the enquiry. Having allowed the appellant-workman to work for fourteen years, by the time punishment of dismissal from service F was imposed on the appellant, the appellant had reached the age of forty five years. As observed by the Labour Court, the appellant having crossed forty five years, he could not have sought for alternative employment. Further, similarly placed workmen were ordered to be G reinstated with lesser punishment of stoppage of few increments. While so, there is no reason as to why for the similar misconduct the appellant should be imposed harsh punishment of dismissal from service. [Para 9] [30-H; 31-A-DJ H 26 K.V.S. RAM v. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN 27 TRANSPORT CORPORATION 1.2. On facts, considering the delay in completing A the enquiry and the age of the appellant and the fact that similarly situated workmen were reinstated with lesser punishment, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement, in exercise of its discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once the Labour Court has B exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws. The award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any such flaws. While interfering with the award of C the Labour Court, the High Court did not keep in view the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the award passed by D the Labour Court is restored. [Paras 10, 15 and 16] [31-E-F; 36-E-G] Syed Yakoob vs. K. S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477: 1964 SCR 64; lswarlal Mohan/a/ Thakkar vs. Paschim E Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & Anr (2004) 6 SCC 434; and Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192: 2010 (1) SCR 591 - relied on. Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board & Anr. vs. Ramsajivan &Anr 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 668 = (2007) 9 SCC F 86: 2007 (5) SCR 684 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2007 (5) SCR 684 1964 SCR 64 (2004) 6 sec 434 2010 (1) SCR 591 referred to Para 11 relied on relied on relied on Para 12 Para 13 Para 14 G H 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 412 of2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2012 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WritAppeal No. 390 B of 2008. c V. N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. S. N. Bhat for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by I R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment dated 3.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, in D and by which, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-workman thereby, confirming the termination of the appellant. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:- The appellant was appointed on the post of Driver in E the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation on 3.9.1985 and was working on the same post since then. The appellant was served with article of charge dated 3.9.1990 alleging that he had secured appointment by producing a false transfer certificate. An enquiry was initiated on 15. 7 .1992 and the F appellant·submitted his explanation to the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.3.2002 holding the appellant guilty for his misconduct. After affording opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the G proposed punishment, the disciplinary a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.