- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5803 WP No. 63460 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 63460 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF N.W.K.R.T.C., REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI, THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUNITHA.P.KALASOOR., ADVOCATE) AND: BASAVARAJ S/O. MARUTI SHINGADI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MYAKARAMARADI, POST: NESARAGI, TQ: BAILAHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. … RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5803 WP No. 63460 of 2012 ORAL ORDER Smt.Sunitha P. Kalasoor, counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person. A notice was issued to the respondent. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent, Basavaraj, was working as an office assistant in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 07.03.2008 to 05.09.2008 without prior permission or sanction of leave. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. Articles of charge were issued. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record and the past conduct of the workman, passed an order of punishment on 20.09.2010 and dismissed him from service. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5803 WP No. 63460 of 2012 The respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Hubli in K.I.D.No.27/2011. The Labor Court vide award dated 26.07.2011 partly allowed the dispute. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds, as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records with care. 4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 5. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct, i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., dismissed from service on 20.09.2010. The issue revolves around unauthorized absences. The Corporation specifically contended that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5803 WP No. 63460 of 2012 The workman attempted to contend that he was unwell and, hence, he could not attend the duty. However, he did not furnish any medical documents to substantiate his claim before the inquiry officer. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is misconduct in industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment. No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right, and remaining absent without leave will constitute a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct and justifies disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct or absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, the delinquent remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority. Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971, mandates taking note of past conduct. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5803 WP No. 63460 of 2012 disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of dismissal. Hence, the Labor Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly. I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the award passed by the Labor Court is unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the award passed by the Labor Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Labor Court Hubli in K.I.D.No.27/2011 vide Annexure-B is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 20.09.2010 is confirmed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of, and the interim order if any, granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP, CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68