The judgment establishes the principle that denial of work, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and imposition of compulsory retirement without compliance with statutory requirements and in the absence of prima facie evidence amount to victimization and are unjust under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. Mudagal, J.

1. W.P.Nos.35764/2009 and 12515 of 2013 are filed by the workman. W.P.No. 43643/2012 is filed by the management. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to hereafter as 'workman' and 'management'.

2. The management is engaged in running various Educational Institutions. It also runs an Institution called 'Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences'. On 29/11/1984 the management appointed the workman as driver in that institution.

3. On 10/2/1990 when workman was driving the Ambulance van of the management, that met with an accident. In the accident he suffered injuries. The management filed complaint against the workman alleging that the accident occurred due to his irresponsibility, dereliction of duties and thereby caused huge damage to the vehicle and in turn to the institution. In the criminal prosecution, he was acquitted.

4. After the accident the workman was not assigned any work. The management claims he was kept under suspension with effect from 24/4/1990. The workman claimed that he was unjustly denied the work from 24/4/1990. The workman filed an application No. 35/1991 under sec. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) claiming full backwages from the date of suspension. The Additional Labour Court allowed the said application on 22/2/1996. The management satisfied the said award.

5. Claiming that he has suffered injuries during the course of employment the workman filed W.C.No. 13/1994 before the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal for compensation. That came to be allowed awarding Rs.1,61,398.00 with interest at 12% P.A. The management challenged the said order before this Court in M.F.A.No. 5491/1999. This Court by order dtd. 20/4/2001 confirmed the award with the direction that the management shall satisfy the award and recover the same from the Insurance Company.

6. The workman raised dispute in Reference No. 84/1996 against the management claiming that the management has unlawfully terminated him from service. In that case, he claimed that the management forced him to drive an Ambulance which was not in good condition which led to the accident. He further claimed that despite that management held a farce domestic enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice on the charge that he was responsible for the accident. He sought for reinstatement and back wages etc. On failure conciliation the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bengaluru which was numbered as Ref. No. 84/1996.

7. The point of reference in Ref.No. 84/1996 was whether the management was justified in denying the work to the workman with effect from 24/4/1990. In that case though the management was represented through its advocate neither cross-examined the workman's witness nor led its evidence. The II Addl. Labour Court by award dtd. 8/2/2006 allowed that claim petition and directed the management to reinstate the workman to his original post or equivalent post in view of the injuries suffered by him due to the accident. The Labour Court also awarded the continuity of services with other consequential benefits with backwages reserving liberty to the management to deduct whatever amount/wages already paid to the workman.

8. The management filed M.A.No. 6/2006 before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex-parte award dtd. 8/2/2006 in Ref.No. 84/1996. The Labour Court by order dtd. 3/10/2008 dismissed the said application on merits. The management filed W.P.No. 14654/2008 (L-TER) before this Court seeking quashing of the award in Ref.No. 84/1996 and the order in M.A.No. 6/2006. This Court by order dtd. 12/1/2009 dismissed the writ petition confirming the Tribunal's order/award on the ground that the management has already revoked the suspension order in the year 2000 and reinstated the workman.

9. Pending M.A.No. 6/2006 the management initiated second disciplinary enquiry against the workman by issuing charge-sheet dtd. 6/1/2007. The misconduct alleged in the said charge-sheet we