Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs T.V. Anandappa

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn. ...Appellant

Versus

T.V. Anandappa ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the

appellant. Challenge in this writ petitions was to the award passed by the

Labour Court, Bangalore setting aside the order of removal of the

respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `workman') and directing his re-

instatement with continuity of seniority in the list of Badli Conductors but

without back wages.

3. Factual scenario is almost undisputed. The respondent was appointed

as Badli Conductor and disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him

with regard to his unauthorized absence from duty. His name was ordered to

be removed from the list of Badli Conductors by order dated 19.12.1995. A

Claim Petition in terms of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the `Act') was filed. The same was withdrawn and dispute

under Section 10(1-C) of the Act was raised which was referred to the

Labour Court, Bangalore. After recording evidence of the parties the Labour

Court came to the conclusion that the absence from duty on the part of the

respondent was on account of ill health and indisposition . Placing reliance

on the medical certificates produced and the reasons assigned for his

absence the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to re-

instatement as Badli Conductor and order of his removal was not justified.

Order of Labour Court was challenged before the High Court.

4. The stand in the writ petition was that there was delay of about 4

years in raising the dispute while filing the application under Section 10(4-

A) of the Act and although a specific objection was raised in this regard

before the Labour Court the same was not considered. The charge framed

against the workman about his unauthorized absence from duty

2 intermittently for a long period of time has not been considered by the

Labour Court while passing the award.

5. The workman contended that the Labour Court was justified in

holding that because of his ailment he could not join duty and had

remained absent.

6. So far as the delayed approach is concerned the respondent-workman

contended that there was no evidence adduced regarding delay or gainful

employment. The High Court was of the view that there was no material to

show that the workman was gainfully employed anywhere. That being so,

the writ petition was dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that being Badli worker

the question of any protection under the Act does not arise. The Labour

Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that since the medical

certificates were submitted , he should not have been removed.

Admittedly, his name was struck off on 19.12.1995. For the first time a

grievance was raised in 1999. The respondent filed claim statement and

ultimately arguments were heard and reference was made. Learned counsel

3 for the respondent supported the judgment of the Labour Court as affirmed

by the High Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that there

was no protection available under the Act to the respondent.

9. In view of what has been stated in Karnataka State Road Transport

Corporation and Anr. v. S.G. Kotturappa and Anr. (2005 (3) SCC 409) the

respondent had no right under the Act. The Labour Court should not have

therefore adjudicated the dispute. In essence, the reference made to the

Labour Court was incompetent. In the peculiar facts of the case there is no

scope for inclusion of the name of the respondent in the Badli Conductors

and there is no question of any continuity of service.

10 The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 16, 2009

4