- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43238 WP No. 11036 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 11036 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHIKKABALAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER: KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M.B.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O. LATE BYRAPPA M., DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO.2546, R/AT: 9TH BLOCK, SEVEN HILLS SCHOOL ROAD, BAGEPALLI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.J.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43238 WP No. 11036 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sanjeev.B.L., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Guruprasad.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.A.J.Srinivasan., for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The brief facts are these: The respondent joined the service of the corporation as a Driver cum Conductor. He was issued with articles of charge for the misconduct of unauthorized absence from 22.06.2010 till 22.02.2011. He was subjected to domestic inquiry. The Inquiry Officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. On 05.10.2012, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and passed the order of punishment dismissing the respondent from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D No.23/2013. The Labor Court vide order dated 06.08.2014 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43238 WP No. 11036 of 2016 fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 29.08.2015 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the respondent. The order on preliminary issue and the award are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records with care. 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 5. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. 6. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent from duty from 22.06.2010 till 21.02.2011. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43238 WP No. 11036 of 2016 was submitted, even if it is submitted that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds. 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 a 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 violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes a misconduct justified disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct of absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. The respondent attempted to contend that he was suffering from bone problems and hence, he was unable to report to duty. He also contended that he furnished medical certificates in this regard. The Labor Court concluded that the Corporation has not considered the explanation given by the respondent. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43238 WP No. 11036 of 2016 respondent did not furnish any documents of treatment that was received by him. The Labor Court has failed to notice that the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment by taking into consideration the medical certificate furnished by the workman. The conclusion of the Labor Court that Corporation has failed to prove that the workman remained absent willfully must necessarily fail since the burden is on the workman to prove that he did not remain absent willfully. Furthermore, the Labour Court has over-looked the fact that the respondent is an habitual absentee. The same is evident from the fact that he remained absent in the past on nine occasions and despite providing him sufficient opportunity to reform his conduct, there was no improvement. Needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. As already noted above, the workman was involved in almost nine unauthorized absenteeism case in the past. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of dismissal. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43238 WP No. 11036 of 2016 to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 06.08.2014 on Issue No.1 vide Annexure-M and the award dated 29.08.2015 passed by the II Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.23/2013 vide Annexure-N are quashed. The order of dismissal dated 05.10.2012 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51