Employee Cannot Seek Reference In Respect Of Recovery Order Before An Industrial Tribunal: Karnataka High Court
|The Karnataka High Court has held that an employee cannot challenge the recovery order before an Industrial Tribunal.
The Court set aside the Tribunal's order to reinstate the conductor (the Respondent), who had lost tickets worth Rs. 27,251 and was disciplined. The Court observed that the Respondent's request to pay the amount in ten installments was initially approved but later rejected. Although the Respondent, rather than challenging the order, filed a Reference Petition.
Justice Jyoti Mulimani observed, “Hence, she could not have sought reference in respect of Recovery order. The Recovery order and the punishment order are two different orders”.
Advocate Renuka H.R. appeared for the Petitioner.
The Respondent was a conductor responsible for handling tickets worth Rs.27,251/- and distributing them to passengers while keeping them safe. Unfortunately, the tickets were lost, and the conductor reported the incident to their Depot Manager. As a result, the Depot Manager requested disciplinary action against the conductor. The Divisional Controller (DC) then directed that Rs.27,251/- be deducted from the conductor's salary in ten equal payments. The conductor contested the recovery order, bringing the matter before the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal favored the conductor, awarding her monetary compensation of Rs.27,251/-. The Petitioner appealed to the High Court.
The Court noted that the Respondent had requested to deduct the amount from her salary in ten installments, and it was approved. However, she received disciplinary action later and was instructed to pay an additional Rs.1,000/- from her salary in five equal monthly installments, which she did not dispute. Although she challenged the Recovery order, which was referred to the Tribunal by the government, the Court noted that the Recovery Order was not considered an order of punishment, as the punishment order was for a separate amount. The Court declared that the government did not consider the matter properly while referring it to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal erred in its decision.
The Court noted, “As already noted above, the respondent did not challenge the order of punishment. Hence, what was required to be considered is that whether the respondent could have sought reference with respect to the Recovery order. It is pivotal to note that the recovery order is not an order of punishment”.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Cause Title: Karnataka State Road v. H.S.Shobharani