Case: K.V.S.Ram Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:-The appellant was appointed on the post of Driver in the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation on 3.9.1985 and was working on the same post since then. The appellant was served with article of charge dated 3.9.1990 alleging that he had secured appointment by producing a false transfer certificate. An enquiry was initiated on 15.7.1992 and the appellant submitted his explanation to the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.3.2002 holding the appellant guilty for his misconduct. After affording opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority passed the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 1.10.20044. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant raised an industrial dispute bearing I.D.No.39/2005 before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court vide award dated 14.2.2007 directed the management of the corporation to reinstate the appellant in his original post with continuity of service but without backwages. The Labour Court modified the punishment directing withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. In the Labour Court, appellant has produced notarized copies of orders passed by the respondent-Corporation in respect of other workmen, who have committed similar misconduct but were awarded lesser punishments. Referring to Exs. W.5 to W.11 which are the notarized copies of the orders passed in respect of other workmen who have committed similar misconduct, Labour Court held that those workmen were reinstated in service with minor punishment of withholding of few annual increments, whereas the appellant was imposed grave punishment of dismissal from service and thus was discriminated. Referring to another judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.17316/2005 (L/K) dated 8.8.2005, Labour Court observed that when similarly situated workmen were imposed lesser punishment and the appellant cannot be discriminated by imposing punishment of dismissal from service and the Labour Court in exercise of its discretion under Section 11A set aside the punishment imposed on the appellant and directed reinstatement of the appellant without backwages5. Being aggrieved, respondent-corporation filed a writ petition before the High Court. Vide order dated 31.1.2008, learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the proved misconduct against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-workman preferred appeal before the Division Bench challenging the legality and correctness of the said order. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the charges levelled against the appellant are serious in nature and that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority was just and proper. In this appeal, the appellant assails the correctness of the above judgment.

Court's reasoning:
9. The appellant joined the services of the corporation in the year 1985. In the year 1990, charges were framed against the appellant alleging that he had secured appointment by producing a false certificate and enquiry was initiated in the year 1992 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report only in the year 2002, nearly twelve years after framing of charges. Even though the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.3.2002, order of dismissal from service was passed only on 1.10.2004Enquiry report was thus submitted after a lapse of twelve years and there was a delay of twelve years in conducting and completing the enquiry. As pointed out by the Labour Court, there was no plausible explanation for such inordinate delay in completing the enquiry. The appellant continued in service from 1990 to 2004. Having allowed the appellant-workman to work for fourteen years, by the time punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the appellant, the appellant had reached the age of forty five years. As observed by the Labour Court, the appellant having crossed forty five years, he could not have sought for alternative employment. Further, as seen from Exs. W.5 to W.11, similarly placed workmen were ordered to be reinstated with lesser punishment of stoppage of few increments. While so, there is no reason as to why for the similar misconduct the appellant should be imposed harsh punishment of dismissal from service10. It is settled proposition of law that while considering the managements decision to dismiss or terminate the services of a workman, the Labour Court can interfere with the decision of the management only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. Considering the delay in completing the enquiry and the age of the appellant and the fact that similarly situated workmen were reinstated with lesser punishment, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement, in exercise of its discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act15. Once the Labour Court has exercised the discretion judicially, the High Court can interfere with the award, only if it is satisfied that the award of the Labour Court is vitiated by any fundamental flaws. We do not find that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any such flaws. While interfering with the award of the Labour Court, the High Court did not keep in view the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.