JUDGMENT :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.13483 of 2013, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the petitioner-Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation and set aside the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement, the respondent in the writ petition has preferred the instant writ appeal.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent was appointed as a driver in the year 1992. It is his case that the petitioner-Corporation, after about 8 years of appointment, raked up the issue with regard to the genuineness of the transfer certificate that the respondent had produced at the time of his appointment to the post of driver. On the issue that the respondent had furnished a false transfer certificate, a charge sheet was issued to him, seeking his reply. The reply submitted by the respondent to the charge sheet was found to be unsatisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry, who after the enquiry held that the charges levelled against the respondent as proved. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after hearing the respondent, the petitioner-Corporation dismissed the respondent for the aforementioned misconduct by its order dated 21.9.2004.

4. After about six years of the order of dismissal, the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in Reference No.39 of 2011. The respondent-workman contended that the domestic enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer was perverse. Based upon the pleadings, the Labour Court framed an additional issue calling upon the petitioner-Corporation to prove that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent-workman was fair and proper. On the evidence and the documents produced, the Labour Court by its order dated 2.11.2011 held the enquiry to be fair and proper.

5. On the issue of victimization and other incidental issues concerning proportionality of punishment, witnesses were examined in the enquiry and the documents were produced by the respondent-workman. The Corporation chose not to lead any evidence on the said allegation. The Labour Court answering the issue of delay in referring the dispute held that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NEDUNGADI BANK LIMITED VS. K.T. MADHAVAN KUTTI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2000 SC 839 and other judgments, rejected the ground of the petitioner-Corporation that the reference should be rejected on the ground of delay.

6. The Labour Court further held that the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was shockingly disproportionate and discriminatory as in similar circumstances, in terms of Exs.W.5 to 9, the petitioner - Corporation had imposed a lesser punishment to others while extreme penalty of dismissal from service against the respondent-workman. On accepting the plea of discrimination, holding the report of the Enquiry Officer as perverse, the Labour Court allowed the Reference No.39 of 2011 on 11.5.2012, which reads thus:

“Order

Reference Under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the ID Act so referred to the Court by the Government in the matter of the first party applicant and the second party management named above, is allowed and thereby order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the second party management dismissing the first party workman from service is set aside and by virtue of the same management is directed to reinstate the first party workman into service within one month from the date on which the award becomes enforceable, with continuity of service only for the purpose of terminal benefits from the date of dismissal till th