MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC Vs. C. J. BRIGANZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P. No.67250 of 2009 on the file of the learned single Judge of this Court have come up in this intra-court appeal impugning the order dated 05.11.2016.

(2.) Admittedly, the appellants herein are challenging not only the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.67250 of 2009 but also the order, dated 02.04.2009, passed by the Labour Court, Hubli, in KID No.75/1999 where the order of dismissal dated 25.02.1999 passed by the Chief Traffic Manager of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was set aside, and consequently, 50% backwages from the date of dismissal till the age of superannuation is considered along with consequential benefits. The Labour Court also observed that in the event of failure to comply its order, the Disciplinary Authority will be liable to be punished under Sections 25-U and 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In addition to that, various other directions were also issued by the Labour Court.

(3.) The said order of the Labour Court passed in KID No.75/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Hubli, was challenged before the learned single Judge in W.P. No.67250/2009 (L-K) which came to be disposed off by order dated 05.11.2016, as stated supra, wherein the order/award of the Labour Court in KID No.75/1999 was confirmed sofar as it pertained to setting aside the order of dismissal dated 25.02.1999; with reference to certain directions which were issued at Sl.Nos.3 to 6 in the said order, the same were set aside. Consequently, the Management herein was directed to hold de novo enquiry in accordance with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ('KSRTC Regulations', for short) by following the principles of natural justice, with an observation that the de novo enquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible within four months from the date of issuance of a certified copy of that order. In the said order, liberty was also reserved to the petitioners to demonstrate as to whether the delinquent employee was gainfully employed during the interregnum period i.e., from the date of his dismissal from service till the date he reached the age of superannuation, in the de novo enquiry to be conducted.