ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi, in KID No. 16/2018.

2. Brief facts leading to this case are that while the petitioner was working as Conductor with the respondent Corporation, he was issued with articles of charge dated 19.12.2014 alleging that while on duty on 29.11.2014 on Hubballi-Byahatti route, petitioner was subjected to breathalyzer check at 12.02 p.m. The result indicated that he had consumed alcohol and was on duty which was a misconduct. The petitioner submitted reply on 19.12.2014 stating that the previous day he was suffering from ill health and had consumed some over-the counter-medicine. Though he was not f it for duty, the officials of the Corporation forced him to go on route. And when he was subjected to breathalyzer test, the result was not due to his consumption of alcohol but due to contents of the medicine. It was also contended that petitioner was not under influence of alcohol and had performed his duty as Conductor in all earnest.

3. Not satisfied with his reply, disciplinary authority ordered for holding of departmental enquiry and appointed Enquiry Officer. After due participation of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer concluded the same and submitted a report on 05.03.2018. Attaching a copy of the same, second show cause notice was issued cal ling for his representation, if any, against the findings in the enquiry. No reply was filed. Taking note of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the previous work history of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service on 13.06.2018.

4. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner workman filed KID No. 16/2018 before the Labour Court, Hubballi under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. On service of notice, the respondent herein entered appearance and filed objections stating that the breathalyzer test conducted on the petitioner on 29.11.2014 indicated presence of alcohol in the blood stream of the petitioner at 55 mg/100 ml. and the screen of the breathalyzer machine was also flashing in red colour indicating that petitioner had consumed alcohol. The Checking Inspectors submitted report affixing their signatures and an offence memo had also been issued on the spot. Thereafter as the reply submitted was not acceptable, departmental proceedings were initiated and concluded in accordance with law. The Enquiry Officer had held the charges against petitioner, proved. Based on said finding, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service. While passing the order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority took note of service history of petitioner. It was contended that order of punishment was passed after due compliance with the procedure and the same did not call for any interference.

6. Based on pleadings, Labour Court framed following issues:

1. Whether the respondent management proves that inquiry conducted against the workman is fair and proper?

2. Whether the punishment awarded is adequate?

3. Whether the workman is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

4. What order and award?

7. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as WW-1 and did not mark any document. On behalf of the respondents, an official of the Corporation was examined as MW-1 and Exs.M1 to M25 were marked.

8. On consideration, the Labour Court answered issue No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No. 3 in the negative. Consequently, it answered issue No. 4 by dismissing the claim petition vide an award dated 12.03.2020. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

9. Sri. S.B. Malligwad, learned counsel for petitioner submitted as follows:

That the petitioner was unwell and had consumed medication for the same, but the officials of respondent-Corporation forcibly sent him on duty. It was also submitted tha