The North East Karna... v. The North East Karna...

JUDGMENT

J.S KHEHAR, C.J (Oral):

It is not a matter of dispute, that the respondent herein, was earlier engaged as a driver in a private bus service. The bus service in which the respondent was engaged (as a driver), subsequently merged into the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, and as such, the respondent came to be absorbed in the services of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in 1988. He had rendered service for a number years in the aforesaid Corporation when the appellants herein passed an order dated 11-10-2001 (Annexure-A) terminating the services of the respondent.

2. Dis-satisfied with the order dated 11-10-2001 (Annexure-A), the respondent raised an industrial dispute. After conciliation proceedings failed, State Government referred the dispute raised by the respondent for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as Labour Court). The Labour Court by its award dated 31-12-2007, upheld the order dated 11-10-2001.

3. The award of the Labour Court dated 31-12-2007 them came to be assailed by the respondent, by filing W.P No. 8268/2008 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this court, allowed the aforesaid writ petition on 7-4-2010. While allowing the aforesaid writ petition, the appellants herein were directed to re-instate the respondent with continuity in service, and other benefits which he may have been entitled to, except back-wages.

4. The order passed by the learned single Judge on 7-4-2010 (disposing of W.P No. 8268/2008) has been assailed by the appellants herein, by filing the present writ appeal.

5. A perusal of the impugned order of termination dated 11-10-2001 reveals, that the services of the respondent came to be dispensed with on account of two factual considerations. Firstly, that the respondent had produced a false “Transfer Certificate”. And secondly the respondent had produced a false “Experience Certificate”. The learned single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 11-10-2001 had taken into consideration the fact, that the appellants herein had failed to produce either of the two certificates before the Labour Court. We are satisfied that in order to justify the impugned order dated 11-10-2001, it was imperative for the appellants herein, to establish that the said “Transfer Certificate” and “Experience Certificate” allegedly produced by the respondents were forged. Since appellants had neither produced the “Transfer Certificate” nor “Experience Certificate” before the Labour Court, it was natural for this court had to set aside not only the order passed by the Labour Court but also the impugned order dated 11-10-2001 (passed by the appellants herein). The respondent herein could have established the genuineness of the aforesaid certificates only if the appellants had produced them before the Labour Court. Even during the course of hearing of the instant writ appeal, learned counsel for the appellants could not invite our attention to the actual orders produced by the respondent, on the basis of which he is alleged to have obtained employment with the appellants fraudulently.

6. For the reasons recorded herein-above, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7-4-2010 (whereby W.P No. 8268/2008 came to be allowed).

7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is dismissed.

8. On account of the fact that the main writ appeal itself has been dismissed, the application accompanying the writ appeal for condonation of delay does not survive for consideration, and is disposed of as such.