Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vs Late Revanappa

Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.—The North Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (''the Corporation'', for short), the petitioner, has challenged the legality of the award dated 23.08.2010, passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to consider the case of the legal representatives of the deceased workman for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Briefly the facts of the case are that, Revanappa, the workman, was working as a Conductor with the petitioner Corporation. On 12.12.2005, while he was working as a Conductor of a bus, bearing registration No.3708, plying between Bellary and Raichur, the bus was inspected; it was discovered that he has failed to issue tickets to two passengers who were travelling from Sindhanur to Raichur and had failed to issue tickets to three passengers who were travelling from Potnal to Raichur despite having collected the requisite Lire from them. He had further failed to issue tickets to two passengers travelling from Manvi to Raichur although he had collected the fare as well. Therefore, due to his misconduct, a departmental enquiry was conducted against Revanappa. The Enquiry Officer found Revanappa guilty of the alleged misconduct. Thus, Revanappa was dismissed from the service.

Since Revanappa was aggrieved by the dismissal order, he had raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in K.LD.No. 146/2007. However, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, Revanappa expired. Consequently, his legal representatives were taken on record. The learned Labour Court framed three issues as under:

1) Whether the D.E. held against the deceased workman Revanappa by the second party is lair and proper?

2) Whether the deceased workman Revanappa is guilty of the charges levelled against him?

3) Whether the LR''s of the deceased workman are entitled for the claim as prayed in the claim statement?

As far as issue No.1 is concerned, the learned Labour Court gave a categorical finding that enquiry held against Revanappa was fair and proper one. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, the learned Labour Court opined that since the workman is dead, the charges levelled against the dead person cannot be proved. Thus, the Labour Court did not give any judicial finding on issue No.2. As far as issue No.3 is concerned, it gave direction to the petitioner Corporation to consider the case of one of the legal representatives for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Hence, this petition before this court.

Mr. Shivashankar, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the case of The NEK RTC through its Managing Director and another v. Hanumanthraya, W.P.No.84846 of 2011 decided on 28.03.2013 by this court in order to buttress his plea that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to give any direction to the Corporation to consider the case of legal representatives for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, such a direction issued by the labour Court is illegal and unsustainable.

On the other hand, Mr. K. Ravindra, the learned counsel for respondents has relied on the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Malleshappa, W.P.No. 4759 of 2006 decided on 31.10.2008 by this court to plead that such a direction can, indeed, be issued by the Labour Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned award.

A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Labour Court has not set aside the dismissal order, but has merely held that since the workman had died during the pendency of the labour dispute, the charges against him cannot be proved. But, such a conclusion is neither here nor there. Once it was decided by the learned Labour Court that the departmental enquiry was fair and proper one, sufficient evidence was available with the learned Labour Court to see if the charges were duly proved before the Enquiry Officer or not''? Moreover, the learned Labour Court has not set aside the dismissal order itself. Thus, the dismissal order continues to be in operation. Since the dismissal order is in operation, therefore the relationship between the employer and employee has come to an end. In such a scenario, since Mr. Revanappa is no longer in the employment of petitioner Corporation, obviously, the learned Labour Court could not have directed that one of the legal representatives of Revanappa should be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. After all, the fundamental requirement of appointment on compassionate grounds is that the employee must die in harness i.e., during the course of employment. But, in the present case, Mr. Revanappa''s employment had come to an end, once the dismissal order was passed. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was unjustified in issuing directions to the petitioner Corporation in the aforementioned term.

The learned counsel for respondents is unjustified in relying on the case of Malleshappa (supra) as the case of Malleshappa is distinguishable on factual matrix. In the case of Malleshappa, Malleshappa had died while serving the Corporation. Since his legal representatives had sought appointment on compassionate grounds, since they were denied the said appointment, they had raised a labour dispute. Thus, in such circumstances, the Labour Court had directed the petitioner Corporation therein, to consider the case of Malleshappa''s legal representative for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Therefore, in the case of Malleshappa, (he employee had died during the course of his employment. Thus, obviously, the relationship between the employer and employee was subsisting on the date of death of Malleshappa. However, in the present case, the relationship between the employer i.e., the petitioner Corporation and employee-Revanappa was not in existence. Thus, the case of Malleshappa (supra) is distinguished from the present case.

For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 23.08.2010 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.