IMPORTANT POINT
High Court under Article 226/227 can interfere with impugned order of subordinate forum, particularly in case of social welfare legislation, only when it suffers from perversity or fundamental flaws.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment dated 3.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, in and by which, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-workman thereby, confirming the termination of the appellant.

3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:-The appellant was appointed on the post of Driver in the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation on 3.9.1985 and was working on the same post since then. The appellant was served with article of charge dated 3.9.1990 alleging that he had secured appointment by producing a false transfer certificate. An enquiry was initiated on 15.7.1992 and the appellant submitted his explanation to the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.3.2002 holding the appellant guilty for his misconduct. After affording opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority passed the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 1.10.2004.

4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant raised an industrial dispute bearing I.D.No.39/2005 before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court vide award dated 14.2.2007 directed the management of the corporation to reinstate the appellant in his original post with continuity of service but without backwages. The Labour Court modified the punishment directing withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. In the Labour Court, appellant has produced notarized copies of orders passed by the respondent-Corporation in respect of other workmen, who have committed similar misconduct but were awarded lesser punishments. Referring to Exs. W.5 to W.11 which are the notarized copies of the orders passed in respect of other workmen who have committed similar misconduct, Labour Court held that those workmen were reinstated in service with minor punishment of withholding of few annual increments, whereas the appellant was imposed grave punishment of dismissal from service and thus was discriminated. Referring to another judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.17316/2005 (L/K) dated 8.8.2005, Labour Court observed that when similarly situated workmen were imposed lesser punishment and the appellant cannot be discriminated by imposing punishment of dismissal from service and the Labour Court in exercise of its discretion under Section 11A set aside the punishment imposed on the appellant and directed reinstatement of the appellant without backwages.

5. Being aggrieved, respondent-corporation filed a writ petition before the High Court. Vide order dated 31.1.2008, learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the proved misconduct against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-workman preferred appeal before the Division Bench challenging the legality and correctness of the said order. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the charges levelled against the appellant are serious in nature and that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary authority was just and proper. In this appeal, the appellant assails the correctness of the above judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court erroneously held that the long delay of twelve years in holding the enquiry is not fatal to the case, although it is clearly evident that no reasonable explanation is forthcoming for the inordinate delay of twelve years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. It was further submitted that in the similar cases of other workmen who produced bogus certificate, they were reinstated in the service withholding of few increments with cumulative effect and while so, the appellant alone cannot be discriminated by imposing harsh punishment of dismissal from serv