Syed Irshad vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Mysore

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J - The petitioner joined services of the respondent as a Trainee-Driver by producing a Transfer Certificate allegedly issued by the Government Urdu Higher Primary Boys School, Gunthal Colony, Mandya, The School Transfer Certificate upon verification was found to be bogus. Disciplinary enquiry was ordered in the matter of obtaining appointment by producing bogus document. Misconduct alleged was found established and consequently the name of the petitioner from the list of Trainee-Drivers was removed. Said action was assailed by filing a claim statement under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), in I.I.D. No.41/2004, on the file of the Labour Court, Mysore. Counter statement was filed by the Management and the claim of the petitioner was opposed. With reference to the pleadings of the parties, 5 issues were raised by the Labour Court. Issue No.1 relating to the fairness of the domestic enquiry held was treated as preliminary issue. Both parties adduced evidence and addressed arguments. Memo was filed by the learned advocate for the workman admitting the fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted. As a result, the domestic enquiry conducted was held as valid and proper. Further evidence was not adduced by both sides. The Labour Court having considered the question as to whether the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and whether the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate, upon appreciation of the rival contentions and the record, entered the finding that no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. While entering the said finding, Labour Court found that the workman did not produce any document in proof of genuineness of the School Transfer Certificate produced by him while joining the services of the respondent. Labour Court having considered the claim of the workman with reference to the proportionality of the punishment, in exercise of the power under Section 11-A of the Act, held that in view of production of fake Transfer Certificate and obtaining of the appointment, the punishment imposed is not disproportionate. Consequently, the petition was rejected vide the Award as at Annexure-A. This petition is directed against the said award.

Sri M.C. Basavaraju, learned advocate by placing reliance on the decision in K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39 submitted that the impugned Award is liable to be set aside and the workman directed to be reinstated into service.

On the other hand, Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned advocate for the respondent made submissions in support of the findings recorded in the Award as at Annexure-A. She submitted that pure finding of fact entered by the Labour Court having not been shown to be perverse or based on no evidence/inadmissible evidence is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the decision in KVS Ram''s case having been rendered in different factual context has no application to the petitioner''s case and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Point for consideration is, whether the Award as at Annexure-A is perverse and/or illegal?

Articles of Charge was issued to the petitioner and disciplinary enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer having found the workman guilty of the charge and submitted report, a second show-cause notice was issued by the appointing authority and upon consideration of the record and proof of misconduct, the petitioner''s name was ordered to be removed from the list of Trainee - Drivers. In I.I.D. No.41/2014 on the file of the Labour Court at Mysore, the said action was assailed. Fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was admitted by filing a memo by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Hence, the preliminary issue was answered in the affirmative. The case of the workman having been examined with regard to the perversity if any of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the document produced to obtain the employment i.e. Transfer Certificate being not genuine and the workman having not produced any evidence in proof of the Transfer Certificate produced by him before the employer to be genuine and his failure to prove that the report submitted by the Head Mistress of the School to be untrue/improper, the Labour Court finding no material to find fault with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which was found to be well reasoned has held that the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer is not perverse.

Having considered the claim made that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, upon finding that the misconduct committed by the workman is the production of fake Transfer Certificate to gain employment, Labour Court has held that the punishment is not disproportionate. The workman having failed to show that there was any victimisation or unfair labour practice by the Management, the claim petition was rejected.

In the case of K.V.S. Ram (supra), Labour Court had set aside order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the workman, without back wages but with punishment of directing withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect by finding that similarly placed workmen were imposed with lesser punishment of withholding of annual increments. Labour Court had exercised its discretion by keeping in view the facts of the case and cases of similarly situated workmen. Such finding rendered in exercise of the power under Section 11 of the Act having been interfered with in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227, it was held by the Apex Court, that the High Court can interfere with the order of Tribunal only when there is patent perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal or where there is gross and manifest failure of justice or principles of natural justice were found to have been flouted. In the said case it was found that there was inordinate delay of 12 years in completing the enquiry. Similarly situated workmen were found to have been reinstated with lesser punishment. The age of the workman was also taken into consideration. The Labour Court having exercised the power under Section 11-A, interference by the High Court was found to be erroneous. The said decision has no application to the present case, in view of the factual matrix noticed supra and the adverse findings entered by the Labour Court, both on the question of misconduct and the proportionality of the punishment.

Normally, Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is the final court of facts in these types of disputes. The finding of fact entered by the Labour Court was not shown to be perverse or not based on legal evidence by Sri M.C. Basavaraju. The appreciation of record of the case by the Labour Court was also not shown to be illegal. In the absence of perversity or any illegality on the part of the Labour Court, it is not permissible to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The Labour Court has taken into consideration all relevant factors. No material evidence was left out from consideration. Even now also the petitioner has not produced any material in proof of the genuineness of the Transfer Certificate produced by him before the respondent i.e., while joining service as a Trainee - Driver. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In the result, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.