LexNORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA R.T. CORPORATION versus ASHAPPA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA R.T. CORPORATION B c v. ASHAPPA AND ANR. MAY 12, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] Labour Laws : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Employee-Unauthorised absence ji-om duty-Misconduct-Dismissal ji-om service-Industrial dispute-Labour Court directing the employer to reinstate him to original post and also for payment of back wages- Challenge to-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Errant employee D was asked to resume his duties but he did not report for duties-He was also found unauthorisedly absent from duty on several occasions earlier- Absence of an employee from duty for a long time cannot be treated as minor misconsduct-The misconduct committed by the employee could not be treated lightly-Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and set aside. E F G H The respondent was a conductor. He remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a certain p~riod; and when he was asked to resume his duties he did not report for duties. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was found guilty of committing misconduct, hence dismissed from service. He raised an industrial dispute. The Government of Karnataka made a reference of the dispute to Labour Court. Though the Labour Court found him guilty of committing misconduct but observed that the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him was not fair and legal. Hence, the Court directed the appellant-employer to reinstate him to his original post and also directed for payment of back wages. A writ petition was filed thereagainst by the appellant which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The writ appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal. The appellant-employer contended that the Labour Court as also 708 ' NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA R.T. CORPN. v. ASHAPPA [SINHA, J.] 709 the High Court committed a serious error in arriving at a finding that A absenting oneself from duty for a period of 129 days can be treated to be a minor misconduct, and remaining absent for such a long period should not have been treated leniently. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : Remaining absent for a long time cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The appellant-State Road Transport Corporation runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. The respondent- employee had been given opportunities to resume his duties by issuing notices. Despite such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, B c his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, D it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the respondent has to be treated lightly. (712-B-C] Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574; Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2006] 1 SCC 430 and State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Mohd Ayub Naz, (2006] I SCC 589, relied on. State of U.P. v. Shea Shankar Lal Srivastava & Ors., [2006) 3 SCC 276 and A. Sudharkar v. Post M.aster General, Hyderabad & Anr., (2006) 2 SCALE 524, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 2637 of 2006. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2005 of High Court of E F Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 3976/2002 [LK] G Ms. Anitha Shenoy for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. : Leave granted. H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2.03 .2005 B c D E F G H passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 3976 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the writ appeal filed by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated I 1.06.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said High Court in W.P. No. 25259 of 1999 was dismissed. The Respondent was working as a conductor. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 27. I 1.1990 to 02.12.1990. He did not report for duty with effect from 16.05.1992. His leave records were seen and it was found that he had repeatedly remained unauthorisedly absent. On the aforemention
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.