IN THE HIGH COURT OF KMNATAKA AT 8ANGfLORE DATED THIS THE 18Th CAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.3USTICE G.PATRI BASAVANA GOUD WRIT PETITION &1BBR 9431 OF 1990 Connested with WRIT PETITION NUMBER 2389 OF 1992 Between: The Superintending Engineer (Electrical) Karnateke Electricity Board Hubli Cjtcl (0 M) Hub Ii .....Petitianer in WP NO.9431 of 1990 Respondent No.2 ifl 3387 of 1992 (y bri B. C. Prabhakar, Advocate) And: 1. Sri M. Ismail care of the Secretary Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Union Local Committee Hubli. .....Respondent No.1 n WP 9431 of 1990 Petitioner in WP 2387 of 1992 (By Sri K,Subba Rao, Adv.) 2. The Management of the Karnataka Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Cauvery âhavan Bangalore 560 009. .....Respondent No.1 in WP 2387 of 1992 (By 5 ri C. Prabhakar, Advocated —2— 3. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Hubli. .,...Respondent 2 in ,P 9431 of 1990 Respondent 3 in WP 2387 of 1992 (By Ms. banthakumari, HCGP) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner in No.9431 of 1990 seeks quashing of the award dated 14—9—1989 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in Ref.No. ID 38 of 1986. Petitioner in WP 2387 of 1992 also sought quashing of the above said award,ohl’ in so far as it denies the petitioner hei.n 50 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Petitioner herein further ught direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to grant the petitioner all conseouentlal oenafits consequent upon quashing the award and to grant him the arrears of salary, full back wages and all other consequential benefits which he would have got, including the continuity of service, promotion, etc., héd he not been dismissed from 5arvice. These writ petitions coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The workman concerned)M. ismailhad been working as Junior Assistant in the Karnatàka Electricity Board (KEB). Several charges were levelled against him relating to misappropriation of funds and negligence in doing his duties. —3— On proof of misconduct in a domegtic enquiry, the workman was dismissed from servIce. He raised an industrial dispute in that regard that cane to be referred to the Labour Court Hubfl under Section 1O(1)(c)of the Industrial °isputes Act, 1941 (‘Act’ for short). The reference was oeee-qten41-y transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. The domestic enquiry was initially held invalid. Evidence was then permitted to be led. On appreciation of evidence on r ecorci, the Industrial Tribunal held only the charge of negligence as having been proved and, though not stated in so many words, the Tribunal has, for the said charge, found the punishment of dismissal from service to be disproportionate and in its pl has substituted a lesser punishment of denial of 50 per cent of back wages. With this lesser punishment, the Tribunal by its award dated 14—S—1989,hes directed the workman to be reinstated in service with the benefit of continuity of service and consequential benefits. The management as well as the workman have challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution — the management in so far as F —4” the ward directs reinstatement of the workmen with 50 per cent of beck wages end continuity of service, end the workman in so fee as the award denies him 50 pee cent of beck sages. 2— Extensive evidence was led in to establish the lapses on the part of the workmen. As found by the Industrial Yribunal, several instances have been established such as non—recovery of the amount due from the consumer, posting the entry in respect of payment by one consumer to the account of arother consumer, coilecting I.e sser amount from the consumer then what is mctually to be collected, etc. These facts are virtuly admitted inasmuch as the workmen has no answer to all these lapses except saying that he had been under pressure of week and at times saying thet he had received lessee amounts on the instructions of the superiors which contention did not stand substantiated. The Industrial Tribunal,therefore,found that there was sbsolutely no case of misappropriation, end the Tribunal also notices in this regard that no one from the management in the course of evidence woke to even a single pain that had bean collected by the workman as having been .40 misapproprieted. The charge of misappropriation thus rightly was held net proved. The charge of negligence however very much stood established as discussed above • In the circumstances, there fere,the Yribunal passed the impugned award. 3. Sri Subraanye, learned counsel for the aenmgesent, strenuously urges that it was not • solitary incident of the workmen being found negligent, but there were series of such incidents which brought the KEG into disrepute. Ms.Sams, lesrned counsel for the worksan,however, urges thet the workman had been under such tremendous pressure of works and that his superiors also were guilty of not properly supervising, and, in the circumstqi ces, the Tribunel ought to have awarded full back wages. 4 • There could be no disputing the position thst,on the basis of the evidence on record, the charge of negligence had to be held as proved. The only qsestion is whether the Tribunal acted arbitrarily in concluding that the punishment of disaissal froe service was disproportionate to the said proved cherge of negligence,and in substituting the lesser e$e punishment of withholding 50 per cent ef beck wages. A reference to the evidence of the Section Officer Abdul Refiq, ezemined as HW—3 in support of the case ef management, would be ef significance in this regard. His eivence would disclose that the workmen was required to attend to the work ef collection ef consumer charges in respect of consisers in 45 villqes in Kelghetgi, w vering as many as 2000 lighting end commercial inetelletiens, 85 power instalments end 80 IP sets. *en,es found earlier, there wee no cese of mieepproprietion end when it wee only a case of negligence, the said negligence, viewed in the light of the pressure of work that the workmen wee put to me spoken to by the Section Officer, P11-3 Abdul Refiq,would make it deer thet 9 fer the amid act of negligence, punishment of diemissel from service was disproportionate. The Tribunel cannot be said to have acted erbitrerily in substituting, as a lesser punishment, denial of 50 per cent of beck wages. 5. There ie,therefore 1 no infirmity in the Ct r —7— impugned award, Both the writ petitions are di cmi sced. sdf jUDGE