- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50409 WP No. 24206 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 24206 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BMTC, NORTH DIVISION, YESHAWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022 HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICERS, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. VENKATARAMAIAH S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O PARESANDRA POST, MILK DAIRY INFORM, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, 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:50409 WP No. 24206 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Shankarappaappeared in person. 2. The petition averments are as follows: The respondent was working in the establishment of the corporation as a trainee driver. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 01.12.2016 onwards without applying for leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. He caused inconvenience and hardship to the corporation. The Depot Manager reported the same to the higher authority. The articles of charge were issued. Despite the notice, the respondent did not submit his explanation. Having no option, the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold an inquiry and appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry notices were issued calling upon him to participate in the inquiry proceedings; the respondent did not appear to defend his case. The inquiry officer submitted a finding holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show-cause notice was issued, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50409 WP No. 24206 of 2023 and the respondent did not submit a reply. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 29.08.2018 and dismissed the respondent from service. 3. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I D NO 28/2018. The Labor Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court passed an award dated 27.03.2023 setting aside the order of punishment. The corporation has assailed the award of the Labor Court in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care. 5. The point that requires consideration is, whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference? 6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50409 WP No. 24206 of 2023 punishment, i.e., he was dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 01.12.2016 onwards. 7. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on health grounds. 8. 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 justifying 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50409 WP No. 24206 of 2023 9. It is pivotal to note that the respondent did not defend his case before the inquiry proceedings. The Labor Court condoned the misconduct by placing reliance on a medical certificate, Exs. W1 and W2 and W 3 produced by the respondent. This is incorrect. The Labor Court has failed to observe whether the medical document inspires confidence with cogent, supported documents. In the absence of a clinical prescription, the medical certificate could not be relied upon; to be more concise, without a clinical prescription, the medical certificate was not reliable. 10. The Labour Court erred in law and fact by interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority solely on the ground of the length of service, without due regard to the gravity and nature of the established misconduct. The length of service is not a determining factor in the condonation of misconduct;misconduct carries consequences regardless of length of service. To conclude, I can only say this much that the impugned award is perverse and suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, because the court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50409 WP No. 24206 of 2023 substituting the punishment on an irrelevant and singular consideration of long service. The conduct of the respondent would reveal that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently. Such an employee does not require any sympathy, much less a misplaced sympathy. 11. It is noted that the Labor Court has held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. This is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process of law and following the principles of natural justice. The respondent did not attend the inquiry proceedings and remained absent. He did not defend his case. Hence, the finding on the preliminary issue is liable to be set aside. 12. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 13.01.2020 on the domestic inquiry is quashed. The award dated 27.03.2023, passed by the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I.D.NO.28/2018, is quashed. The punishment order dated 29.08.2018 is confirmed. 13. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50409 WP No. 24206 of 2023 Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21