IMPORTANT POINT
In labour law ‘gainful employment’ would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW—Reinstatement into service with full back wages and all consequential benefits—Respondent working as Conductor in appellant-Corporation was found to have failed to issue tickets of 0.90 paise to four passengers despite collection of requisite fare—Enquiry officer held respondent guilty of misconduct and Disciplinary Authority dismissed respondent from service—Labour Court found that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and directed reinstatement with full back wages—High Court upheld the award—Appeal—Finding on issue that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper had not been challenged by appellant—High Court earlier had remitted matter on issue whether respondent would be entitled to full back wages when Labour Court had awarded 50% of wages—Respondent-workman had admitted that he had income from agricultural pursuits—‘Gainful employment’ would also include self employment wherefrom income was generated—Earlier award of Tribunal awarding 50% of back wages was liable to be restored.
       Held : Since the finding on the issue as to whether the domestic enquiry had been fairly and properly held had been decided in favour of the respondent and had not been challenged by the appellant, the only issue which was remitted by the High Court to the Tribunal was whether the respondent would be entitled to full back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of the award, with continuity of service and consequential benefits. On the said question, we are unable to accept the reasoning of the Labour Court that the income received by the respondent from agricultural pursuits could not be equated with income from gainful employment in any establishment. In our view, “gainful employment” would also include self-employment wherefrom income is generated. Income either from employment in an establishment or from self-employment merely differentiates the sources from which income is generated, the end use being the same. Since the respondent was earning some amount from his agricultural pursuits to maintain himself, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that merely because the respondent was receiving agricultural income, he could not be treated to be engaged in “gainful employment”. (Paras 16 and 17)
       In view of what we have stated hereinabove regarding the income received by the respondent for the period of his dismissal from service till the date of the award, we are of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal after remand and affirmed by the High Court, both by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is liable to be modified and the earlier award of the Labour Court dated 23rd February, 1998 is liable to be restored. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and restore the award passed by the Labour Court dated 23rd February, 1998 and direct the respondent to give effect to the same expeditiously, if the same has not already been implemented. In the event full back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of the award has already been paid to the respondent, the appellant-Corporation will be entitled to recover the same from the respondent.(Paras 20 to 22)

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 1st July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.2446/2005 choosing not to interfere with the findings recorded in the award of the Tribunal as also the order of the learned Single Judge that on account of the forced idleness of the respondent-workman, he would be entitled to full back wages on reinstatement.

3. For a proper appreciation of the order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court, it is necessary to set out a few facts in brief.

4. The respondent-workman was working as a Conductor of Kudligi Depot of the appellant-corporation. On 5th October, 1980, while the said respondent was on duty in vehicle No.MYF-2613 plying between Hadagali to Medalagatta, the said bus came to be checked by the Central Line Checking Squad, Bangalore at Medalgatta Stage No.3. The allegation against the respondent is that he had failed to issue tickets of 0.90 paise denomination to four passengers despite collection of requisite fare at the boarding point. On the basis of the report submitted by the Checking Squad, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and he was served with Articles of Charges. The respondent filed his written statement of defence denying the charges levelled against him. However, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the defence taken by the respondent and appointed the Assistant Traffic Manager as Enquiring Authority to conduct an enquiry against the respondent.

5. Enquiry was duly conducted on 21st January, 1981 and on the materials available, the Enquiring Authority held the respondent to be guilty of misconduct. Accepting the reports submitted by the Enquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 27th August, 1981 dismissed the respondent from service with immediate effect under powers vested in it by Regulation 19 (3) under Part-III of the KSRTC Servants (C & D) Regulations, 1971. The respondent approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation. As the same failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the Government of Karnataka vide Reference dated 22nd November, 1982. The Terms of Reference were as follows:-

“(i)Is the Management justified in dismissing M. Nagangouda, Ex-Conductor, Kudligi Depot, Bellari Division from service with effect from 27.08.1981?

(ii)If not to what other relief the said workman is entitled?”

6. The said reference, being Reference No.46/1992, came up before the Labour Court which in its turn framed the following issues for consideration:-

(a)Whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper ?

(b)Whether the order of termination passed by the respondent is legal and valid ?

(c)What order ?”

7. On 20th October, 1994, the Labour Court heard issue No.1 as a preliminary issue and held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper.

8. On 3rd January, 1995, while the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, the respondent filed an interim application which was allowed by the Labour Court and the appellant-corporation was directed to pay 50 % of the salary last drawn by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid order, the appellant was permitted to obtain work from the respondent on the strength of a joint memorandum filed by the parties. Subsequently, on 23rd Febraury, 1998, the Labour Court allowed the respondent’s claim petition by ordering his reinstatement into service and also holding that he was entitled to receive 50 % of the back wages. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a Writ Petition No.26409/1998 before the High Court of Karnataka which remitted the matter back to the Labour Court with a direction to pass appropriate orders with regard to back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. After remand, the Tribunal vide its Order dated 10th August, 2001, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 30

IMPORTANT POINTIn labour law ‘gainful employment’ would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated.

IMPORTANT POINT
In labour law ‘gainful employment’ would also include self employment wherefrom income is generated.