NEETA Vs. NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 63548/2011 is called in question in this writ appeal.

(2.) THE appellants herein are the legal representatives of deceased Keshava Ijantkar he was a Conductor working in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation; he was issued with articles of charges on 25.05.1992 on the ground that while he was conducting the vehicle from Rathnagiri to Belgaum, the workman did not issue tickets to five passengers despite collecting fair of Rs. 27.50 each and has closed way bill against stage No. 18 in all respects. It is further alleged in the charge memo that the workman was involved in seven past default cases and though he had been awarded minor punishment in respect of the earlier charges, he did not reform himself, consequently did not show any improvement. Domestic enquiry was held after service of charge memo against the workman. In the domestic enquiry the charges were held to be proved after due contest. On 24.08.1994 the workman was dismissed from service. The workman did not choose to question the order of dismissal till his death, i.e., till the year 2005. Only in the year 2006 the legal representatives of the deceased got the matter referred to the Labour Court in Ref. No. 4/2006. The Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal by the order dated 20.07.2010. By the said order the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and without backwages, however, with all consequential benefits. The order of the Labour Court was questioned by the Corporation before this Court in W.P. No. 63548/2011, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 26.07.2013.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the workman was dismissed from service on 22.08.1994 after due enquiry. The workman was alive till the year 2005. Till his lifetime he did not choose to question the order passed by the Disciplinary authority which means the workman has accepted the order of dismissal passed against him by the Corporation. Only after his demise, his legal representatives got the matter referred to the Labour Court in the year 2006. The legal representatives of workman did not either lead any oral evidence or tendered any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the Corporation got marked Ex. M.1 to 38 before the Labour Court.