NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA R T CORPN Vs. ASHAPPA
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on May 12,2006

NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA R.T.CORPN. Appellant
VERSUS
ASHAPPA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

I.M.NAGARAJAIAH VS. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SHARMA VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-150] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. HALDYN GLASS LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-83] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI SHANKER SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHZADA YOUSAF VS. J&K INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT [LAWS(J&K)-2023-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
V THANGARAJ VS. VICE CHANCELLOR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-159] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER B M T C CENTRAL OFFICE; M VENKATESH VS. M VENKATESH [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-379] [REFERRED]
MANAGEMENT MALAYSIAN AIRLINES VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-330] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM) LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (CONCILIATION) AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-1015] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH VS. THE SERVICE MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C., GHAZIABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-402] [REFERRED TO]
AHMAD ABBAS VS. UNION OF INDIA THRO.SECY. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-305] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT PRABHUBHAI PATEL VS. DINESH MILLS LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER VS. S. GANESH [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-485] [REFERRED TO]
UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER VS. SALEEM AHMAD S/O SRI ALLAH RAKKHA [LAWS(UTN)-2011-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATION VS. TRIBHUBAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHENNAI LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CHENNAI) LTD VS. V SAMPATH [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-459] [REFERRED]
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. S D NADAVINKERI [LAWS(KAR)-2013-2-198] [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF W B & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-2-202] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJAS FOUNDATION VS. DHEER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-245] [REFERRED TO]
SHREEPAL VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2007-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
UTTRAKHAND FOREST CORPORATION VS. DHARAM PAL SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2014-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER VS. SUNIL M. JOSHI AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-269] [REFERRED TO]
L.S. PATWA HIGH SCHOOL VS. SHER BILADKHAN BISMILLAKHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
A THANGAVELU VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-323] [REFERRED TO]
C RAMESH VS. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER DISTRICT DEHRADUN VS. DHANI RAM S/O SRI HULAS RAI [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-292] [REFERRED TO]
N K TRIPATHI VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
UNNIKRISHNAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND REGIONAL CO-OP OIL SEEDSGROWERS UNION LTD VS. SHAILESHKUMAR HARSHADBHAI SHAH [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
UTTRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. M C JOSHI [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
UTTARAKHAND FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. ANOOP CHANDRA BHATT [LAWS(UTN)-2019-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
SAUDAGAR SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-150] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR VS. SHRI OM PRAKASH KUMHAR S/O SHRI GIRDHAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-935] [REFERRED TO]
UNIFLEX CABLES VS. MAHESH P. THAKKAR & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2014-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION , DEHRADUN VS. DHANI RAM [LAWS(UTN)-2011-5-30] [REFERRED TO.]
R KRISHNOJI RAO VS. CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER [LAWS(KAR)-2011-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
BASHISHTHA KUMAR MANDAL VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHALIQUE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. V. RAMASWAMY [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-316] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL CHANDRA MAITY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
G V TRIVENI PRASAD VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(APH)-2006-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
K NATRAJAN VS. STATION COMMANDER AIR FORCE STATION [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-15] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2-03-2005 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 11-06-2002 passed by a learned single Judge of the said High Court in W.P. No. 25259 of 1999 was dismissed.
(3.)The Respondent was working as a conductor. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 27-11-1990 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 aforementioned charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was found guilty of commission of the said misconduct and was directed to be dismissed from service by an order dated 6-08-1994. He raised an industrial dispute in relation to the said order of dismissal from service culminating in a reference being made by the Government of Karnataka to Labour Court, Gulbarga for resolution of the said dispute. A preliminary issue was raised before the Labour Court and by a judgment and order dated 30-04-1996, it was found that the disciplinary proceedings held as against the Respondent was not fair and legal. The parties thereafter adduced their respective evidence before the Labour Court. By an award dated 28-06-1996, it was held that the Respondent remained absent from 27-11-1990 to 02-12-1993 and, thus, committed a misconduct. It was, however, opined:
"23. In a normal course the reasonable punishment would be to disallow the back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. But in this case the D.E. has been set aside and the claimant has been granted interim relief. If the back wages and continuity of service are disallowed from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement the punishment would be somewhat unreasonable one. I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to disallow the back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal, i.e., 6-8-94 till the date of granting the interim relief, i.e., 29-1-95 as a lesser punishment."

It was, however, directed:

"The Respondent is directed to reinstate the claimant I-Party to his original post. The claimant I-Party is entitled for back wages at the rate of 75% of the wages what he was getting at the time of dismissal or 75% of the wages in the current rate whichever is more from the date of granting the interim relief 30-1-95. The claimant is deemed to have been continued in service from the said date.

It is hereby ordered that the claimant I-Party is not entitled for back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., 6-8-94 to till the date of granting the interim relief i.e., 29-1-95 as a lesser punishment. I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.