- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 1546 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, WEST DIVISION, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU -560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. H.ALKURAPPA, S/O. HUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT J.THIMMARAYANA HALLI, KALKERE POST, HONNAVALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TLAUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, T., counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person. 2. A perusal of the daily order sheet reflects that the petition was listed on 11.02.2021, and an ad interim order was made. Counsel for the petitioner paid the process fee on 15.02.2021 to enable the office to issue notice to the respondent. The registry concerned issued notice, and the respondent was served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The petition averments are as follows: The respondent was working in the establishment of the corporation as a trainee, driver cum conductor. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 31.05.2011 onwards without applying for leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. He caused inconvenience and hardship to the corporation. The Traffic Controller, taking note of the unauthorized absence, submitted a report to the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager reported the same to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 Divisional Controller. Based on the report, a show-cause notice / Articles of charge was issued to submit an explanation. He did not submit the explanation. A call notice was issued by paper publication on 15.02.2012. 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 remained absent from the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry officer submitted a finding holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show- cause notice was issued, but the respondent did not submit his explanation. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order on 06.02.2013 and removed the name of the respondent from the list of trainee. 4. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bangalore, in Reference No.05/2018. 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 11.06.2019 setting aside the order of punishment. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 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. 5. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the writ papers with care. 6. The following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in concluding that there is no delay and the dispute is not stale? (ii). Whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference by this Court? 7. 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 punishment, i.e., his name was removed from the list of Trainee. The issue revolves around delay and latches and unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 31.05.2011 onwards. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. It is pivotal to note that the respondent did not participate in the inquiry proceedings, and no medical documents were furnished by him. However, the Labor Court condoned the misconduct by placing reliance on a medical certificate, Ex W1, produced by the respondent. This is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 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. The Labor Court has erred on facts and in law by condoning the delay and setting aside the punishment order. I may venture to say that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the court proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding the delay issue. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, has held that when there is no agitation by the workman against the order of punishment and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and laches remain unexplained; it should be presumed that he had waived his right. It is also observed that at the time when the dispute was raised, it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. In the present case, the order of punishment was passed in 2013. However, the dispute was raised in the year 2018. There is an inordinate delay of almost five years. Hence, when the dispute - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 was raised by the workman, it had virtually become a stale dispute. The Tribunal has overlooked this aspect of the matter and erroneously condoned the delay. 11. The respondent contended that he had filed an appeal before the appellate authority; hence, there was a delay in raising a dispute. The contention must necessarily fail. The reason is apparent. There is nothing on record to show that an appeal was filed before the appellate authority, and the same was not considered. 12. 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 remained absent from the inquiry proceedings despite the paper publication. Hence, the finding on the preliminary issue is liable to be set aside. 13. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 11.06.2019 on the domestic inquiry is quashed. The award dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Labor Court Bangalore in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48996 WP No. 1546 of 2021 Reference No 05/2018. is quashed. The punishment order dated 06.02.2013 is confirmed. 14. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 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 KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31