Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPN. versus T.V. ANANDAPPA

Decided
16 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 475 · 2009 INSC 545
Also cited as
  • (2009) 17 SCC 473 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 476

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appeilant. Challenge in this writ petitions was to the award passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore setting aside the order of removal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') and directing his rei,nstatement with continuity of seniority in the list. of Bad Ii Conductors but without back wages.

p. 476

3

Factual scenario is almost undisputed. The respondent was appointed as Badli Conductor and disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him with regard to his unauthorized absence from duty. His name was ordered to be removed from the list of Badli Conductors by order dated 19.12.1995. A Claim Petition in terms of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') was filed. The same was withdrawn and dispute under Section 10(1-C) of the Act was raised which was referred to the Labour Court, Bangalore. After recording evidence of the parties the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the absence from duty on the part of the respondent was on account of ill health and indisposition . Placing reliance on the medical certificates produced and the reasons assigned for his absence the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to re-instatement as Badli Conductor and order of his removal was not justified. Order of Labour Court was challenged before the High Court.

p. 476, margin C

4

The stand in the writ petition was that there was delay of about 4 years in raising the dispute while filing the application under Section 10(4-A) of the Act and although a specific objection was raised in this regard before the Labour Court the same was not considered. The charge framed against the workman about his unauthorized absence from duty intermittently for a long period of time has not been considered by the Labour Court while passing the award.

pp. 476–477, margin G

5

The workman contended that the Labour Court justified in holding that because of his ailment he could duty and had remained absent.

p. 477, margin A

6

So far as the delayed approach is concerned the respondent-workman contended that there was no adduced regarding delay or gainful employment. Court was of the view that there was no material to the workman was gainfully employed anywhere. That the writ petition was dismissed.

p. 477, margin A

7

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted Badli worker the question of any protection under the not arise. The Labour Court seems to have proceeded basis that since the medical certificates were submitted should not have been removed. Admittedly, his name struck off on 19.12.1995. For the first time a grievance raised in 1999. The respondent filed claim statement ultimately arguments were heard and reference was Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court.

p. 477, margin C

8

Learned counsel for the appellant is right submission that there was no protection available under to the respondent.

p. 477, margin E

9

In view of what has been stated in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. S. G. Kotturappa and Anr. (2005 (3) sec 409) the respondent had no right the Act. The Labour Court should not have therefore adjudicated the dispute. In essence, the reference made to the Labour was incompetent. In the peculiar facts of the case there scope for inclusion of the name of the respondent in Conductors and there is no question of any continuity

p. 477, margin F

10

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 8.8.8. Appeal partly

p. 477, margin G