Misbehaviour With Superiors: Supreme Court 2013 in Davalsab Mulla vs NWKRTCSays Dismissal Justified Despite 23 Years Service. The Supreme Court in DavalsabHusainsab Mulla vs North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation refused to showleniency despite 23 years of service. The Court on 24.09.2013 held that a driver whotraveled without ticket and threatened to kill checking staff cannot claim sympathy. TheCourt also clarified that dismissed employees may still be eligible for pension underEmployees’ Pension Scheme 1995. Practically, what we have seen is that long service isoften pleaded to reduce punishment. Supreme Court said long service cannot protectgrave misconduct. This blog explains Davalsab Mulla on discipline, dismissal, and post-retirement benefits.
Facts: Two Days Of Misconduct; Enquiry; Dismissal Confirmed Till SC. On 30.11.1995appellant was found traveling without ticket. He abused checking squad and threatenedInspector. On 01.12.1995 he went to Divisional Office Belgaum, behaved arrogantly withCoordinator, and again threatened Inspector. Joint report by employees led to chargesheet. After enquiry, dismissal order passed. Labour Court upheld it. Single Judgemodified to 2 increments. Division Bench restored dismissal. Supreme Court in appealconfirmed dismissal.The Supreme Court in Davalsab Mulla para 7: "Such an extrememisbehaviour towards the higher officials and fellow employees cannot be dealt withlightly". Court noted appellant had opportunity to participate in enquiry and noprocedural flaw was found.A common mistake workmen make is arguing "first mistake".Davalsab Mulla shows 27 prior defaults were proved. Past conduct matters.
Discipline In Public Transport: Why Sympathy Was Denied.The Supreme Court inDavalsab Mulla para 9-10 laid down discipline principles. Public transport involvespublic safety. An employee who violates rules and threatens superiors erodes discipline.
The Supreme Court in Davalsab Mulla para 10: "Any sympathy shown to a person ofsuch mindset while working in an establishment will definitely cause more harm thangood for the establishment". The Supreme Court in Davalsab Mulla para 8: Relationshipbetween employer and employee is reciprocal. Employer must ensure discipline,employee must comply with rules.In our practice, Corporations cite Davalsab Mulla todefend dismissal in conductor/driver cases. Courts rarely interfere if threat/violence isproved.
Pension After Dismissal: EPF Scheme 1995 Para 12(8). Counsel pleaded for leniencyciting 23 years service and family. Supreme Court had no sympathy but addressedpension. The Supreme Court in Davalsab Mulla para 11-12: Referred to affidavit ofDeputy Chief Law Officer and Para 12(8) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 underEPF Act 1952. "Ceases to be in employment by way of retirement or otherwise" includesdismissal.The Supreme Court in Davalsab Mulla para 13: Directed thatappellant/dependants may approach authorities for pension benefits. Authorities todecide within 1 month.Key takeaway: Dismissal ≠ forfeiture of pension contribution.Dismissed employee with pensionable service can claim EPS 1995 benefits.
Conclusion
Davalsab Husainsab Mulla vs NWKRTC establishes that ksrtc employee dismissalmisconduct supreme court law prioritizes discipline. Supreme Court 24.09.2013 uphelddismissal despite 23 years service due to grave misconduct and bad past record.Section 11A ID Act cannot be used to interfere casually. However, Court clarifieddismissed employees may claim pension under EPF Scheme 1995 Para 12(8). As thelaw stands, employers must prove misconduct + past record. Employees must knowdismissal does not automatically kill pension rights. The Supreme Court’s ruling inDavalsab Mulla is essential for transport sector HR and labour litigation.
