- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12748 WP No. 58575 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 58575 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SEENAPPA S/O LATE Y V NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT YARANAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KETHENAHALLI POST, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY MS. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR MR. A J SRINIVASAN., ADVOCATE) AND: BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION K H ROAD, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE OF DOMESTICE ENQUIRY, DTD 17.08.2013, PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12748 WP No. 58575 of 2015 BENGALURU IN REF.NO.29/2012 A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS ANNX-A; QUASH THE AWARD DTD 19.11.2013 IN REF NO.29/2012 ORIGINAL COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNX-B, AND SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL ORDER AND REINSTATED THE PETITIONER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES CONTINUITY OF SERVICE ETC TO THE PETITIONER'S FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THEIR REINSTATEMENT; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATED THE PETITIONER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES CONTINUITY OF 0SERVICE ETC TO THE PETITIONERS FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THEIR REINSTATEMENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is appointed as a Driver-cum- Conductor on 15.06.2006 with the respondent, and he is served with the charge sheet for unauthorized absence between 15.06.2006 and 08.05.2009. The petitioner has filed his response on 14.09.2009. This response is in vernacular, and the response when translated reads he could not report to duty between the period mentioned in the charge sheet because he lost his father and he had to perform the last rites, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12748 WP No. 58575 of 2015 during this very period his house collapsed and therefore he pursued with the concerned Gram Panchayat for the benefit under Ashraya Indira Awaz Yojana Project for sanction and he also had domestic problems including health issues. 2. The petitioner, to support this defense, has furnished copies of a Death Certificate, the order granting the benefit under the project and the Medical Certificate. The respondent, in the light of this defense, has served the petitioner with the dismissal order on 25.09.2009. On a reference at the instance of the petitioner under Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the ID Act in Reference No.29/2012, the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court'], has by the order dated 17.08.2013 [Annexure-A] opined that the enquiry proceedings are fair enough and by the Award dated 19.11.2013 has dismissed the Reference. The petitioner has examined himself as WW.1 and a representative of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12748 WP No. 58575 of 2015 respondent is examined as MW.1. The petitioner has impugned both the Labour Court's orders dated 17.08.2013 and 19.11.2013. 3. Ms. Avani Chokshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the Labour Court's order dated 17.08.2013 because an enquiry was inevitable and that an enquiry with opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence was necessary, as he was not unequivocal in admitting the charge. The learned counsel also submits that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not deliberate in his absence and if he was not deliberate, his absence cannot be categorized as unauthorized. The learned counsel lastly submits that this Court must interfere because the punishment of dismissal from service for unauthorized absence is too harsh. 4. Mr. Hareesh Bhandary T., the learned counsel for the respondent, is heard in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12748 WP No. 58575 of 2015 light of the canvass as afore, and the learned counsel submits that he will not have any quarrel in the proposition canvassed but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason for interference and it is trite that this Court will interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it can be opined that the Labour Court/Tribunal's orders are perverse and contrary to the settled proposition of law. 5. Upon perusal of the petitioner's response dated 14.09.2009, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is rather unequivocal in stating that he has remained absent and in putting forward the reasons for such absence. The question of deliberate absence must be examined in the light of the reasons offered to justify absence over a long period which is for almost three [3] years. 6. This Court must opine that the only inference that can be justifiably drawn from the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12748 WP No. 58575 of 2015 reasons offered [viz., the demise of his father, the collapse of the house, pursuing the local authority for benefits to reconstruct the house] does not reasonably answer the allegation of deliberately remaining absent from the duty. If the petitioner has remained absent from duty over a period of almost three [3] years that too in the very initial years of the appointment, this Court cannot take any exception with the outcome. Hence, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB