C. Joseph Vs. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mysore

C. Joseph vs The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mysore

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Aug 02, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1182714

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1182714
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee &Amp; Ravi Malimath
Decided On: Aug 02, 2016
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 1744 of 2015 (L-KSRTC)
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Karnataka High Court Act - Section 4 - Condonation of delay - Appellant challenged judgment and order passed by Single judge, affirming award passed by Trial Court Court held - another industrial dispute at instance of Workers' Union, was pending, but it was not urged by workman concerned that he was member of sa...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C. Joseph

Respondent

The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mysore

Excerpt

karnataka high court act - section 4 - condonation of delay - appellant challenged judgment and order passed by single judge, affirming award passed by trial court court held - another industrial dispute at instance of workers' union, was pending, but it was not urged by workman concerned that he was member of said union - court did not find any material on record to show that appellant was member of workers' union, which has raised industrial dispute - no merit in appeal requiring interference by this court - application for condonation of delay was dismissed - appeal dismissed. paras : (9,10,11,12) .....appellant is a workman, we took up the appeal on merits also. 3. while the appellant was working as a helper grade-b, it was found that he was stealthily carrying a new tube in a hand bag. he was caught by the security personnel. it was followed by a full-fledged disciplinary proceedings resulting in his dismissal from service. 4. a dispute was raised by the workman. the labour court found, as findings of fact, that the enquiry was proper, legal and that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. a point was raised before the hon'ble single judge that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the workman. 6. we have considered the arguments of mr.l.shekar, learned advocate for the appellant. 7. we find that both the labour court and the hon'ble single judge were right in holding that the management was right in dismissing the employee, as it was found that he was committing theft of the management's property. 8. mr.shekar has taken a point that the order passed by the labour court was erroneous, inasmuch as the management did not obtain sanction before passing the order of dismissal, as another industrial dispute, concerning this workman, was pending. 9. ms.h.r.renuka, learned advocate appearing for the management, submits that another industrial dispute at the instance of the workers' union, was pending, but it is not urged by the workman concerned that he was a member of the said union. 10. we do not find any material on record to show that the appellant is a member of the workers' union, which has raised the industrial dispute. 11. we find no merit in the appeal requiring interference by this court. therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 12. consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed. 13. we make no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed U/s 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.39139/2011 dated 30/11/2012.)

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, CJ.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated November 30, 2012, passed by the Hon'ble Single judge, affirming an award passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru.

2. The appeal is barred by limitation. Since the appellant is a workman, we took up the appeal on merits also.

3. While the appellant was working as a Helper Grade-B, it was found that he was stealthily carrying a new tube in a hand bag. He was caught by the security personnel. It was followed by a full-fledged disciplinary proceedings resulting in his dismissal from service.

4. A dispute was raised by the workman. The Labour Court found, as findings of fact, that the enquiry was proper, legal and that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. A point was raised before the Hon'ble single Judge that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the workman.

6. We have considered the arguments of Mr.L.Shekar, learned advocate for the appellant.

7. We find that both the Labour Court and the Hon'ble Single Judge were right in holding that the management was right in dismissing the employee, as it was found that he was committing theft of the management's property.

8. Mr.Shekar has taken a point that the order passed by the Labour Court was erroneous, inasmuch as the management did not obtain sanction before passing the order of dismissal, as another industrial dispute, concerning this workman, was pending.

9. Ms.H.R.Renuka, learned advocate appearing for the management, submits that another industrial dispute at the instance of the Workers' Union, was pending, but it is not urged by the workman concerned that he was a member of the said Union.

10. We do not find any material on record to show that the appellant is a member of the Workers' Union, which has raised the industrial dispute.

11. We find no merit in the appeal requiring interference by this court. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

12. Consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed.

13. We make no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2016 Same Parties C. Joseph vs The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mysore Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee &Amp;...

Labour and Industrial