Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs Rama Reddy and Others

V. Suri Appa Rao, J.—This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order dated 5th January, 2010 passed in W.P. No. 4402/2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition confirming the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the award passed by the Labour Court in another case i.e. in Krishna Reddy''s case has become final and binding on the appellant - Corporation and that the appellant - Corporation cannot discriminate between two employees who were dismissed on the same ground. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent - Rama Reddy was working as Helper ''A'' in the appellant - Corporation. He was an Office Bearer of the Unit of the KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation along with one Krishna Reddy. The respondent was transferred to Bidar on 20.03.1997. After that the employees filed a writ petition calling in question the order of transfer, but no interim order was granted by this Court and other workmen reported to duty, worked for some time. Thereafter, they remained absent for some period. The appellant - Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for disobeying the orders of transfer and for unauthorised absence. The Disciplinary Authority conducted enquiry by issuing Articles of Charge and by a separate order terminated the respondent and two others. They raised dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed award on 27th June, 2008 recording a finding and directed the appellant - Corporation for reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, the appellant - Corporation has filed Writ Petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant-Corporation filed this writ appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though this Court declined to pass any interim order on the transfer order the respondent failed to join duty and he has absented for one year and without submitting any leave application for his unauthorised absence for one year. Therefore, the learned single Judge and the Labour Court were not justified in awarding 50% back wages for the unauthorised absence of the respondent for a period of one year.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the case of Krishna Reddy, an award was passed by the Tribunal has become final wherein the Labour Court passed award with 50% back wages in the case of Krishna Reddy and the same was confirmed by this Court. Therefore, there cannot be any discrimination in the case of Krishna Reddy.

The learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that in this case, the respondent remained absent for one year. Therefore, there was no justification in awarding 50% back wages. Before the Tribunal, he has not shown sufficient cause for his unauthorised absence, he has stated that he is unable to go from Bangalore to Bidar daily. For such a cause, the respondent cannot be a benefited with back wages of 50%.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the award passed by the Labour Court, confirmed by the learned single Judge awarding 50% of back wages is not just and reasonable. In view of his absence from duty for a continuous period of one year, we feel it is just and reasonable to award 25% back wages on account of the absence of the respondent as the other employee Krishna Reddy was given some benefit of back wages. We therefore, allow this writ appeal filed by the appellant - Corporation modifying the award of back wages from 50% to 25% to the legal representatives of the respondent from the date of dismissal till the deceased workman attains the age of superannuation. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed in part.