- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12851 WP No. 27659 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. 27659 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: DIVISION CONTROLLER BMTC NORTH DIVISION, YESHWANTHPUR , BANGALORE 560022 BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M MOHAN S/O LATE MARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MADUR, YELANDUR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST 571313 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.2/2013 VIDE ANNEX-E; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 25.7.2014 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12851 WP No. 27659 of 2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.2/2013 VIDE ANNEX-G. 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 This petition is by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [for short, ‘the Corporation’] calling in question the order dated 06.01.2013 and the award dated 25.07.2014 in ID No.2/2013 on the file of the Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court']. The Labour Court, by the first impugned order dated 06.01.2013, has found against the Corporation on the inquiry against the respondent [a workman] being fair and proper. The workman and the Corporation, with the Labour Court's aforesaid order, have lead evidence and marked exhibits. The Labour Court, on appreciation of the evidence, by the next order dated 25.07.2014 has found that the workman has been victimized, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12851 WP No. 27659 of 2015 punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and therefore he must be reinstated. This Court, on 10.07.2015, has granted interim order, subject to the workman being reinstated. 2. Sri Hareesh Bhandary T, the learned counsel for the Corporation, submits that the respondent indeed is reinstated but because of his next unauthorized absence between 02.05.2018 and 28.04.2019, he has been served with the dismissal order dated 15.11.2021. The learned Counsel submits that this Court must dispose of the petition in the light of the canvass against the Labour Court's order and the subsequent turn of events. The respondent has remained absent though served. 3. The charge against the workman is that he remained unauthorizedly absent for the period between 02.03.2011 and 13.07.2011. The workman's defense as against this charge is that he had applied for leave on medical grounds for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12851 WP No. 27659 of 2015 period between 02.03.2011 and 13.07.2011 and that he had applied for leave along with a Medical Certificate, but the Depot Manager has sent a false report of absenteeism. The enquiry based on charges as aforesaid is concluded with the dismissal order, with the workman admitting guilt. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the evidence is let to show that the concerned Depot Manager was prosecuted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 in CC No.137/2013 and that subsequently the Chief Deputy Manager is also removed from service. 4. It is in the light of this evidence that the Labour Court has opined that there is victimization. As emphasized by Sri Hareesh Bhandary T, it is seen that the workman has a history of remaining unauthorizedly absent. The first of such incident is in the year 2005 when he remained unauthorizedly absent between 05.02.2005 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12851 WP No. 27659 of 2015 and 31.03.2005. The next period of unauthorized absence is between 02.03.2011 and 13.07.2011. The workman, though alleged victimization, has not spoken, as seen from the Tribunal's impugned order, about his ailment, the treatment that he availed, the duration during which he was laid low or such other details to vindicate his stand that he had submitted leave application with the requisite medical certificate for the period between 02.03.2011 and 13.07.2011. 5. The workman’s absence during this period is over three months, and these details should have been brought on record. The workman has admitted that he has signed accepting unauthorized absence but has taken up the defense that it was at the instance of one Sri Gurushantha, the Enquiry Officer, that he signed his statement. The Tribunal should have considered the afore circumstances and the Tribunal's failure has resulted in an order that is impermissible. The Tribunal, in relying upon the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12851 WP No. 27659 of 2015 evidence on prosecution of the Depot Manger, has allowed extraneous circumstances to prevail. Crucially, it is now brought on record that the respondent has remained absent even during the pendency of this writ petition resulting in his dismissal from service on such grounds in the year 2011. In the circumstances, the following: ORDER [A] The writ Petition is allowed. [B] The Labour Court's impugned award dated 25.07.2014 in ID No.2/2013 is quashed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV