Back
2008 (3) KLO 2207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.N. Nagamohandas, J.
Writ Petition No. 17555/2006 (S-RES)
Karnataka Antibiotics and Anothers - Petitioner
Vs.
National Commission SC and ST Other - Respondents
Decided on 29-5-2008
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 338(8) & 5(a)(b): [H.N.Nagamohan DAs, J] Powers of Civil courts conferred on National Commission for Scheduled Castes - Nature and scope of powers - Held, They are procedural powers given to Commission for limited purpose of investigating any matter or inquiring into any complaint under clauses (a) and (b) respectively of Article 338(5). Commission has no power to grant injunctions, permanent or temporary. Thus, where employee of governmental industrial undertaking has been dismissed on charges of misconduct proved against him in domestic enquiry, order passed by Commission to directing management to hold fresh enquiry and reinstate dismissed employee with full back wages and consequential benefits, pending fresh enquiry is ultra vire its power and is liable to be quashed.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226 & 227: [H.N. Nagamohan Das, J] Writ Petition filed by the trade union and an employee questioning the competency of the direction issued by the Member of the National Commission for SC & ST to reinstate the fourth respondent, a Senior Manager - Locus Standi of the petitioners - Held, First petitioner is espousing the cause of its members who are the employees of third respondent/Company -Second petitioner is an employee of the third respondent/Company and member of first petitioner trade union. The petitioners are questioning the competency of second respondent to issue the impugned directions and not the service conditions. Though the impugned direction mentions reinstatement and payment of other benefits to the fourth respondent the same is only an incidental. The first petitioner being the trade union representing the majority of employees of the third respondent Company and the second petitioner being an employee are entitled to maintain a writ petition questioning the competency of second respondent to issue the impugned direction.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 338 : [H.N. Nagamohan Das,J] Constitution of National Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes - Power of the Commission to set aside a concluded enquiry and an order of penalty - Held, The Second Respondent being the member of the first respondent Commission is not empowered to set aside a concluded inquiry and the order of penalty and the order of Appellate Authority under Article 338 of the Constitution of India. On facts, held, The second respondent directed the third respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry, to treat fourth respondent as deemed to have been continued in service and to pay him the salary and other allowances, By this impugned direction the second respondent virtually set asides the inquiry report, order of penalty and the order of appellate authority. Therefore, the impugned direction issued by the second respondent is without power and authority.
Nagamohan Das, J.
In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the directions dated 11.9.2006 issued by the second respondent directing the third respondent to reinstate the fourth respondent into service and also to extend him other benefits.
2. The third respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act and jointly owned by the Government of India and Government of Karnataka. Fourth respondent was a Senior Manager in the third respondent-company. On 29.01.2004 the third respondent-company issued articles of charges to the fourth respondent stating that he indulged in corrupt practices, neglected to discharge his duties, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company, indiscipline, made false statement before superiors, favouritism for pecuniary benefit etc. The fourth respondent submitted his reply on 10.02.2004 denying the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation of fourth respondent initiated enquiry proceedings. On 13.06.2005 the Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the fourth respondent as proved. After providing an opportunity to the fourth respondent the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of penalty on 15.12.2005 removing the fourth respondent from service. Aggrieved by this order of penalty the fourth respondent filed an appeal and the same came to be rejected vide order dated 27.01.2006 and it had become final.
3. The fourth respondent instead of questioning the order of penalty and the order of Appellate Authority before the appropriate forum gave a representation to the first respondent – Commission stating that injustice has been caused to him. The second respondent, as member of first respondent Commission visited the third respondent-company at Bangalore and held a meeting with the officers of the third respondent company on 11.09.2006. In the said meeting among other things the second respondent discussed the issue relating to fourth respondent and directed the third respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry and treat the fourth respondent as deemed to have been continued in service and to pay the salary and allowance. Aggrieved by this direction issued by the second respondent on 11.09.2006 in so far as it relates to the fourth respondent, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Sri. V.S.Naik, Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that the second respondent has no power or authority to issue directions to the third respondent to hold a fresh enquiry. Article 338 of the Constitution of India will only empower the commission and its members to investigate into the complaint received by it and to submit a report to the concerned authority to take suitable measures to protect the interest of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community people. The first respondent Commission is not empowered to set aside the order of penalty and the order of the Appellate Authority against the fourth respondent and to order for a fresh enquiry. He further contends that the directions issued by the second respondent has no sanction by the first respondent Commission. The impugned directions issued by the second respondent will be a bad precedent in the third respondent Company and it will affect the interest of employees and the company. Reliance is placed on the following decisions.
i. Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 399.
ii. The Workmen of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. The State of Karnataka., Rep. by its Secretary to Government. of Karnataka and others, ILR 2007 Kar 3755.
iii. Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri and others Vs.. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 344
iv. Ghulam Qadir Vs.. Special Tribunal and others, (2002) 1 SCC 33.
5. Sri. S.N.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent submits that they have written a lette
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
