- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 60746 OF 2011 (L-TER) BETWEEN: HUSSAINSAB MOHABOOBSAB BALAKUNDI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: #280, KHB COLONY, 38TH ROAD, HABBUWADA, KARWAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR VEERAPUR FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATES) AND: N.W.K.R.T.C., SIRSI DIVISION, SIRSI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, SIRSI. (N.K.) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 20/02/2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER OF ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID. NO.8/2007, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH LESSER PUNISHMENT AND WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the workman calling in question the award dated 20.02.2010 passed in KID No.08/2007 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli1, 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the petitioner/workman was appointed as a driver with the respondent-Corporation in the year 1983 and he worked continuously and had an unblemished service for 18 years. However, since the year 2001, he suffered a heart ailment, which compelled the workman to avail health treatment and also avail leave for the same. It is the case of the workman that sometimes leave was granted whereas, on some other occasions he was marked absent. 1 Hereinafter for short ‘Labour Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 3. The workman was issued an articles of charge/charge sheet dated 22.03.2006 alleging that he was unauthorizedly absent from 12.04.2005 to 22.03.2006. The workman submitted his reply denying the charges and further contended that he was forced to take leave often due to treatment of his heart disease. The respondent- Corporation appointed an Enquiry officer who conducted enquiry into the alleged charges. The enquiry report was submitted and the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 18.09.2006 to the workman. The workman submitted his explanation on 05.10.2006. The workman was dismissed from service with effect from 10.10.2006. Being aggrieved, the workman filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472, in KID No.8/2007. The Corporation entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the said proceedings. The Tribunal, by its award dated 20.02.2010 dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 2 Hereinafter for short’ the Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman was suffering from a heart ailment which compelled him to take treatment from time to time, as a result of which he could not attend his duty. It is also submitted that the workman has submitted leave applications periodically, which was not adequately considered by the Corporation. It is also contended that in the enquiry, that fraudulently the signature of the workman was taken on a white paper which was used by the Corporation to contend that he had admitted his guilt. That the workman has submitted the necessary documents to demonstrate his medical treatment and that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the charge made against the workman. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation justifying the order of the Tribunal contends that the workman having admitted his guilt in the enquiry proceedings, the tribunal was justified in dismissing his petition. It is further contended that the workman had a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 past history of being unauthorisedly absent for a total period of 867 days. It is also contended that apart from the articles of charge, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings, on all earlier occasions the workman was imposed with minor punishments, despite which, the workman has continued to remain unauthorisedly absent. That the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the relevant factual matrix of the matter and dismissed the petition which ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition. 6. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The questions that arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petition? (ii) If answer to question No.1 is in the negative, what order? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 Regarding question Nos. (i) and (ii): 7. The relevant factual matrix with regard to the employment of the workman is undisputed. It is further a matter of record that the workman was issued with the Articles of charge/charge sheet dated 23.03.2006 alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from 12.04.2005 to 22.03.2006. The workman has replied to the said articles of charge contending, inter alia, that he was taking treatment for his medical ailment and that he had made applications for grant of leave, which is not appropriately considered. In the enquiry, it is the contention of the Management that the workman had appeared and admitted his guilt, consequent to which, the Enquiry officer concluded his enquiry at the request of the workman and found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him and submitted a report to the Management. It is the contention of the workman that when he attended the enquiry, the clerk directed him to appear on receipt of the fresh enquiry notice and on that day the clerk has taken his signature on white paper, which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 has been misutilized. Also it is the contention of the workman that he did not admit his guilt, nor submit any representation admitting his guilt. 8. With regard to the period for which he was alleged to be unauthorizedly absent, the Tribunal, considering the material on record, has recorded the following findings: “10. It is further evidence during 2003 he suffered heart decease and he continued treatment thereafter even now during April 2005 he has suffered High B.P. and on the advice of the Doctor he took rest and he has submitted leave letter to the respondent along with medical certificate. This claimant-workman not absented himself delebarately, thereby claimant-workman sought for an award in his favour. He also produced documents as per Ex.W.1 to 17. Ex.W.1 is a medical certificate issued at Goa Medical College Hospital, which discloses that the claimant-workman is fit to resume duties w.e.fl. 18.3.2005, but his document was signed by the Doctor on 21.3.2005, further this document did not discloses the nature of decease for which treatment was given. Ex.W.2 is out patient slip issued at District Hospital, Karwar, which is dated 27.1.2005 this also discloses Hypertention - Chest pain today evening. Ex. W.3 is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 discharge card of Goa Medical College Hospital which discloses that the claimant was admitted on 27.1.2005, discharged on 4.2.2005 for HTN+IHD+reinfaction AWM1. Ex.W.4 is another medical certificate of Goa Medical College Hospital issued on 3.3.2005 advising rest for a period of 20 days from 27.1.2005 to 26.2.2005. Exs.W.1 to 4 are not related to the period to which unauthorised absence is alleged. As per the management the claimant-workman was unauthorisedly absented himself from 12.4.2005 as per charge sheet Ex.M.5. Further claimant has produced Ex.W.5 a medical certificate issued by Dr. Savant, Gurukrupa Nursing Home, Kajubag, Karwar, which discloses that the claimant was suffering from Hypertension and IHD for which he was advised rest from 25.3.2005 to 8.6.2005, this document is issued on 25.3.2005. ex.w.6 is a certificate by same doctor dated 22.8.2006 advising rest from 22.8.2006 to 15.10.2006. ex.W.7 is a letter given by the claimant-workman for leave from 25.3.2005 to 8.6.2005. Ex.W.9 is the letter seeking extension of leave from 22.8.2006 to 15.10.2006. Ex.W.12 is a certificate relating to the period from 31.12.2003 to 30.1.2004 for 31 days, further this document discloses that the claimant took treatment at district hospital, Karwar from 26.12.2003 to 30.12.2003 and he requires rest. This is not connected to the period to which claimant was charge sheeted, even Exs.W.13 & 14 are not relating to the said period. Thereby the claimant-workman is seeking relief on the ground of treatment during the period of his absence. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 claimant-workman not pleaded anything in the claim- statement relating to his ill-health from 12.4.2005, he has submitted reply to the charge sheet, only in the evidence he has deposed that he has taken treatment during the said period and not able to attend the duty, thereby no documents to show that the claimant was inpatient for the period 2003 till 21.7.2005. It is also alleged that the claimant-workman was habitual absentee to his duty. The corporation has maintained the history sheet as per Ex.M.16. the claimant-workman was provided with all opportunity and understand the questions posed by the enquiry officer as per proceedings ex.M.10 and he has admitted the guilt, then Submitted Ex.M.11 representation pleading that he is admitting guilt. In the circumstances the claimant- workman come forward with new plea in the evidence alleging that the clerk has obtained his signature on blank paper and it was converted a letter Ex.M.11, but there is no pleadings in the claim statement to effect that except alleging that he was not provided with opportunity, but by going through the enquiry paper, the claimant-workman was provided with all opportunity and he pleaded guilty, thereby the charges alleged are Proved in fair and proper enquiry. Then the management has taken in to consideration the past default history and also the charges levelled against him are proved and come to the conclusion that the claimant-workman is in the habit of absenting himself to the duty, thereby causing much inconvenience to the regular work of the corporation. The management has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 also taken in to consideration the past default history which has been proved in enquiry, thereby the present claimant-workman failed to substantiate the acceptable reasons for his absence, accordingly the management has taken decision to dismiss the claimant-workman from service. In this case the claimant-workman is not entitled for any relief U/sec. 11-A of I.D. Act. Thereby the management is justified in dismissing the claimant- workman from service. Accordingly issue no.2 is answered in the affirmative.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record has recorded a finding that the workman has not produced any documents to show that he was admitted or had taken treatment during the period which he was alleged to have been unauthorisedly absent. However, it is pertinent to note that in the letter (Exhibit W7), the workman had sought leave from 25.03.2005 to 08.06.2005, which includes the period during which he was alleged to be unauthorizedly absent. It is also pertinent to note that the claimant has written a letter (Exhibit W9) seeking extension of leave from 22.08.2006 to 05.10.2006. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 10. It is evident from the material on record that the workman, consequent to his appointment in the year 1983, had worked diligently up to the year 2001, from which period he is alleged to be unauthorizedly absent on various dates. The prior instances of punishment that has been imposed by the Management are all instances of the workman being unauthorizedly absent from 07.04.2001 up to the articles of charge, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, which is of the year 2006. There is no material to indicate that ever since the date of his employment in the year 1983 up to the year 2001 that any allegation was made against the petitioner of any wrong doing in the course of his employment. All the instances where articles of charge have been served on the petitioner are with regard to instances of being unauthorizedly absent. It is further forthcoming from the material on record, which has been appreciated by the Tribunal, that the workman has taken medical treatment at the Goa Medical College - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 Hospital, District Hospital Karwar/Guru Krupa Nursing Home, Kajubag, Karwar and at other places. 11. It is clear that the workman is suffering from a medical condition from the year 2001 which constrained him to take adequate medical treatment in this regard, resulting in him being irregular in his employment with the Corporation. The facts of the present case reveal that the same has to be appreciated appropriately, more particularly having regard to the fact that there is no allegation against the workman of any instance of misappropriation or any other allegation involving moral turpitude. 12. Although it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the workman has been continuously unauthorizedly absent and that the initial instances of the workman being unauthorizedly absent have been adequately dealt with by imposing minor punishments and since the instances of the petitioner being unauthorisedly absent have continued despite minor - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 punishments being awarded, the Corporation was constrained to pass an order of dismissal, it is clear that the reason for the workman not to attend the duty is his medical condition. 13. It is trite law that a Writ Court can interfere with the order of punishment if it shocks the conscience of the Court. The present case is one where this Court is required to exercise its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to ensure adequate relief is granted to the workman, more particularly, in view of the fact that the reason for the petitioner being unauthorisedly absent is the unfortunate medical condition that he has been undergoing. 14. In the facts of the present case, the order of dismissal that has been passed by the respondent Corporation, which has been affirmed by the Tribunal would cause great hardship to the workman. On the other hand, if the said order of dismissal is interfered with having regard to the fact that the workman has already attained - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 the age of superannuation, having regard to the discussion made above, it is just and proper that the workman be ordered to be reinstated to be in service together with all service benefits and continuity of service without back wages and the same would meet the ends of justice. Hence the question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the negative and question No.(ii)framed for consideration is accordingly answered. 15. Hence the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The award dated 20.02.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Additional Labour Court, Hubli in KID No.8/2007 and the order of dismissal dated 10.10.2006 is set aside; iii) The petitioner shall be construed as having been reinstated without back wages but with continuity of service as also all other service - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10997 WP No. 60746 of 2011 benefits. The cumulative service benefits shall be paid to the respondent/workman within twelve weeks from today. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7