Shri Y. Narayanaswamy vs The Chief Traffic Manager, B.M.T.C.

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner joined the service of the Respondent as a trainee driver on 16.11.2000. The Respondent issued Articles of Charge dated 23.12,02 alleging that, the workman by producing a bogus transfer certificate No. 54/90-91 with admission No. 6/71-72 alleged to have been issued by Government Higher Primary School, Kotagal, Chintamani Taluk. along with the application for employment, the employment as a driver in the Corporation was obtained and that there is a commission of misconduct under Regulation 14(9) of the KSRTC Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1982. The reply was submitted by the Petitioner on 24.3.03, wherein he denied the charge. The Management having subjected the Articles of Charge to a domestic enquiry by appointing en enquiry officer, the enquiry was held, wherein the Head Mistress of the said School deposed as MW-2. The enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charge as proved. The Corporation thereafter, removed the Petitioner from service on 3.2.04 for the misconduct stated in the Articles of Charge dated 23.12.02. The claim of the Petitioner u/s 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the Act'') before the Labour Court being unsuccessful, the workman has preferred this writ petition.

Sri S.B. Mukkannappa learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised a sole contention that, the Petitioner who possesses the required qualification i.e., pass in 7th Standard, being eligible for appointment and there being no other acts of misconduct by the Petitioner over the period during which he rendered service in the Corporation,- the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent is unjustified. learned Counsel contended that, the Labour Court has failed to exercise its plenary power u/s 11-A of the Act and hence, interference in the matter is called for.

Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand, submitted that, the transfer certificate produced by the Petitioner while obtaining the employment marked as Ex.M2 is a bogus transfer-certificate. The admission register marked as Ex.M4 shows the candidate''s name as M.K. venkataramanappa and not the Petitioner. That, the transfer certificate which has now been produced as Annexure-H shows that, the admission was during the year 2001-2004 and that the claim now made is that, the Petitioner appeared as a private candidate in 7th Standard examination and qualified. learned Counsel submits that, production of a false transfer certificate having been held as proved, which is also well founded, the action taken by the Management is justified. She submits that, a person who produced false certificate and obtained employment cannot claim any sympathy before the Court.

In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Labour Court is justified in negativing the claim of the Petitioner?

The fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management to enquire into the misconduct stated in the Articles of Charge dated 23.12.02 was conceded and the Labour Court by an order dated 15.4.09 has held the enquiry to be fair and proper. Sri Mukkannappa does not raise any objection with regard to the finding recorded by the Labour Court on issue No. 1 dated 15.4.09. After the said order was passed, no other evidence was placed on record of the Labour Court by the workman. The fact that, Ex.M2 marked in the domestic enquiry was produced by the Petitioner while joining service is not in dispute. MW-2-Head Mistress of the School has deposed with regard to the admissions made in the School. Ex.M4 is the admission register extract marked through MW-2 which shows that the name of the pupil as against SI. No. 6/71-72 is that of M.K. Venkataramanappa and not the Petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to Ex.M4 also. In the circumstances, the production of the transfer certificate by the Petitioner which did not tally with the admission register extract shows that Ex.M2 is not a genuine transfer certificate. In the reply filed to the Articles of Charge, the Petitioner claims that the transfer certificate produced by him was genuine. The burden of proof that the transfer certificate produced at the time of obtaining employment is genuine was on the Petitioner only. Neither in domestic enquiry nor before the Labour Court, the Petitioner has been able to establish that Ex.M2 is a genuine transfer certificate. In the circumstances, the action taken by the Management has rightly been not found fault with by the Labour Court. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is not perverse or illegal.

In so far as the proportionality of punishment is concerned, the fact of obtaining employment by producing a document which is not genuine having been established, merely because the workman has the requisite educational question, cannot be a ground to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management. No ground is made out to interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management and the Labour Court was justified in not exercising its power u/s 11-A of the Act.

Writ petition is devoid of merit and shall stand dismissed.