- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 31021 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: H. M. NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT D.HOSAHALLI, VIA KADUGODI, DEVANAGUNDI POST - 560 067, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BMTC, EAST DIVISION, DOMMLURU, BANGALORE - 560 071. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO,78/2017 DTD 13.3.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE W.P AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation. 2. The petitioner, who was working as a Conductor, in the respondent/Corporation is before this Court challenging the award dated 13.03.2019 passed in I.D.No.78/2017 by II Additional Labour Court at Bangalore. In terms of the impugned award, the reference under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ' the Act'), is dismissed. 3. Certain facts are admitted. Petitioner is an ex-employee of the respondent/Corporation. He joined services under the respondent/Corporation as a Conductor on 01.07.1997. The respondent/Corporation alleged that petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 04.08.2015 onwards. Pursuant to that, on 07.10.2015, a report is sent to the higher officer reporting unauthorized absence of the petitioner. On 09.11.2015, second report is sent reporting unauthorized absence. On 14.12.2015, a call notice was issued to the petitioner to report to duty. However, the petitioner has not - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 reported to duty. On 07.12.2015, a charge sheet was issued under Regulation 22 of the KSRTC Servants (C&D) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'Regulations, 1971'), proposing disciplinary enquiry for imposing minor penalty. Again the said charge sheet was recalled and on 30.03.2016, charge sheet is issued under Regulation 23 of the Regulations, 1971, proposing major penalty. 4. Petitioner submitted his reply, and on 06.05.2016, enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted. On 23.09.2016, second show-cause notice was issued pursuant to the finding of guilty by enquiry officer and thereafter, the disciplinary authority after considering the materials on record dismissed the petitioner from service. 5. The said order is called in question by raising a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has found that enquiry conducted by the respondent/Corporation is fair and proper. Thereafter, parties led evidence in support of their respective claim. The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence, has concluded that the penalty imposed is fair and proper. Accordingly rejected the reference. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/employee is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employee referring to the evidence on record and referring to the impugned award, would contend that in paragraph number 11 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has extracted the letter addressed by the petitioner, which was marked at Ex.W7. In the said letter, it is noticed that no date is mentioned. However, it is stated in the said letter that petitioner is unable to attend work on account of his ailment as he was suffering from multi organ failure. 8. It is further stated in the letter that he is unable to discharge the heavy work and doctor has advised him to take up light work and for this reason, he has made a request to the respondent/Corporation to assign light work as well as leave for certain period and the same is not yet considered and for this reason, he has not attended the work and the absence should not be treated as unauthorised absence, without any justifiable cause. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 9. Referring to said letter the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court could not have rejected the reference and should have set aside the order of dismissal. It is also a submission that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2024 and considering the fact that he has severe physical ailment, the respondent/Corporation should have taken a lenient view and the Labour Court should have exercised the discretion under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Corporation contends that petitioner's alleged multi organ failure is not established by any medical records. It is also her case that he was unauthorizedly absent on 27 occasions in the past and on all those occasions, he has been let off with a minor penalty by imposing a fine of Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/-. 11. The petitioner has again unauthorisedly remained absent for unreasonably long period and he is not entitled to any lenient view. 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 13. As can be seen from Ex.W7, which is extracted in paragraph No.11 of the order, the petitioner has claimed that he was suffering from multi organ failure and for this reason, he submits that he was unable to attend to work and despite his request to sanction leave, the same has not been sanctioned. 14. The claim made in the said letter that petitioner is suffering from multi organ failure is not supported by any medical records. Few medical records have been produced to show that petitioner is suffering from some ailment. But those records would only indicate that he was prescribed some medicine and he has undergone certain tests. The documents would not reveal that he is advised rest on account of multi organ failure for such a long duration. Again the records would not indicate that the petitioner has availed leave before remaining absent. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view, that claim that petitioner moved application seeking leave and same is not considered by the respondent/Corporation, is not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 established. The cause asserted by the petitioner that he is suffering from multi-organ failure is again not established. 16. Moreover, the records would indicate that earlier on 27 occasions petitioner was subjected to disciplinary enquiry and he was found guilty of unauthorized absence. 17. Under these circumstances, the disciplinary authority has taken a decision to impose penalty of dismissal. It is also relevant to note that even when the enquiry was pending, the petitioner has not chosen to report to duty. That apart, in the disciplinary enquiry, he has not chosen to cross-examine the witness examined on behalf of respondent/Corporation. In other words, the evidence led by the respondent/Corporation is not controverted at all and has remained unchallenged. 18. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of Labour Court, which has chosen to uphold the decision of the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of dismissal. No case is made out to interfere in the said order, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4062 WP No. 31021 of 2019 19. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 20. Since the petitioner is dismissed in the year 2015, in case the service benefits if any, are not paid, shall be paid to him within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It not same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from today. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT:VN