- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 17124 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15127 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) IN WP No. 17124/2017: BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY MS. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) AND: RAGHURAM, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O JAKKARASANAKUPPA VILLAGE, URIGAUM PET, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R SOMASUNDR RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD OF THE SECOND ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF.NO.30/2014 DT.18.8.2016 (ANNX-K). Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 IN WP NO. 15127/2017: BETWEEN: SRI RAGHURAM, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A JAKKARASANAKUPPA VILLAGE, URGAUM PET, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI R SOMASUNDR RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR. ...RESPONDENT (BY MS. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY II - ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF.NO.30/2014 DATED 18.8.2016 AT ANNEX-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF BACK WAGES TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 ORAL ORDER These two petitions are filed assailing the award dated 18.08.2016 in Ref.No.30/2014 on the file of Second Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. 2. Writ Petition No.17124/2017 is filed by the employer (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). Writ Petition No.15127/2017 is by the employee (Hereinafter referred to as the 'workman'). 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation as well as the workman. 4. The workman joined the services under the Corporation on 13.01.2003. Alleging unauthorised absence from 25.09.2011 till 09.11.2011, domestic enquiry was held. The Workman did not participate in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority concluded that the workman remained unauthorisedly absent till the date of conclusion of enquiry and dismissed him from service with effect from 24.07.2012. 5. The workman raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court adjudicated the preliminary issue as to whether - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. However, after recording evidence, the Labour Court noticed that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. Thus, fresh enquiry was held before the Labour Court and in the said enquiry, both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claim. 6. The workman essentially contended that he was not keeping well and for this reason, he could not report to duty and his absence is not wilfull. The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence concluded that the charges are proved however, opined that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct and accordingly, interfered with the penalty of dismissal. The Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent and also held that the respondent is entitled to all consequential financial benefits without backwages. 7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, one petition is filed by the Corporation and another by the workman. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would contend that the defence of ill health raised by the workman is not established. The Medical certificate which is produced by the workman is doubted by the Corporation. The certificate is not accompanied by any other documents like prescription and other supporting records. Thus, the workman cannot contend that his absence was not unlawful. 9. It is also pointed out that workman submitted a letter marked at Ex.W.2 which is dated 22.06.2012 which according to the workman is the letter submitted seeking permission to join the duty. The attention of this Court is also drawn to Ex.W.3 - the medical certificate produced by the workman which says that the workman was under treatment from 25.11.2011 till 18.06.2012. Referring to this document, it is urged that document at Ex.W.2 is concocted document and no such document was submitted to the Divisional Controller seeking permission to join duty. 10. It is submitted that the workman has impliedly admitted that he was away from duty without any acceptable - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 cause and without leave as the medical certificate produced by him, if at all accepted, itself would reveal that he was under treatment from 25.11.2011 to 18.06.2012. 11. It is further submitted that the Corporation has produced the history sheet against the workman wherein he was imposed penalty on 27 occasions. This document is not disputed by the workman and the lenient view taken by the Labour Court is unjustified. 12. Learned counsel for the workman would submit that on 22.06.2012, he approached the Corporation with a permission to join service and same was denied. It is his further submission that since September, 2011 he was not keeping well and he was under treatment from November, 2011 and medical certificate is produced to establish that he was not keeping well and he had justifiable reasons to remain absent from duty on account of ill health. Thus, he would contend that Labour Court is justified in interfering with the penalty on the premise that same is disproportionate to misconduct alleged. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 13. It is his further submission that the charge sheet itself is defective, in the sense that the charge sheet only refers to the unauthorised absence from 25.09.2011 to 09.11.2011 and the penalty of dismissal is imposed holding that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent till the date of dismissal. It is his submission that there was no charge sheet for the alleged unauthorised absence from November, 2011 - the date on which the charge sheet is issued. 14. Learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union of India and another1 to contend that unless the charge is framed relating to the wilful disobedience and unless, it is established that the workman was willfully absent, penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation by way of reply relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage 1 2012 AIR SCW 1633 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 Board and Others VS T.T. Murali Babu2 to contend that the judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar supra is held to be not a law of universal application and it was only confined to the facts of the said case and in the subsequent judgment in T.T. MURALI BABU supra, the Apex Court has held that it is not necessary for the Corporation to establish that the absence is wilfull. 16. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 17. Since, it is specified in the charge sheet that the workman was unauthorisedly absent with effect from 25.09.2011 to 09.11.2011, this Court is considering only the unauthorised absence for the said period. 18. Admittedly, no record is produced to show that the petitioner filed an application seeking leave before remaining unauthorisedly absent from 25.11.2011. On the other hand, the letter at Ex.W.1 dated 25.11.2011 submitted by the workman itself would indicate that he has remained 2 (2014) 4 SCC 108 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 unauthorisedly absent from 25.09.2011. In the letter itself, he has clearly mentioned that he has unauthorisedly remained absent and he sought medical leave by addressing letter on 25.11.2011. 19. The workman has not produced medical records to show that he was not keeping well between 25.09.2011 to 25.11.2011. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court has concluded that unauthorised absence is established and absolutely, there was no reason for the respondent to justify his absence. 20. As far as the contention relating to the charge which does not refer to wilful absence, the Apex Court in the case of T.T. MURALI BABU supra has clarified that the charge need not contain a wilful absence. 21. After going through the charge sheet issued by the Corporation, it is noticed that the charge sheet is issued alleging that the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent without there being any leave application or sanction for leave. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 22. This Court is of the view that the said charge sheet clearly specified the misconduct which is alleged against the workman. This being the position, it is not necessary for the Corporation to establish that the workman remained willfully absent. In case, workman has any justifiable compelling reasons to remain absent, it is for the workman to establish such contention. The only defence of ill health pleaded by the workman is not established as no medical records are produced to show that the workman was not keeping well from 25.09.2011 to 09.11.2011. 23. As far as the finding of the Labour Court relating to the interference in the penalty imposed by the Corporation is concerned, the Labour Court has taken a view that the Corporation was required to establish with positive and cogent evidence that the workman willfully remained absent. In the absence of such finding, the Labour Court opined that the penalty of dismissal is not sustainable. 24. From the records placed before this Court, this Court is of the view that the Corporation has made out a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 case that the workman has misconducted himself and he had suffered 27 penalties earlier. Though the learned counsel for the workman would contend that, two other workmen who had remained unauthorisedly absent for a longer period compared to the workman were given lesser penalty. This Court has perused the order of penalty imposed on those two workmen which are marked as Ex.W.4 and from Ex.W.5. In the said orders, it is noticed by the disciplinary authority that the medical grounds which are pleaded by the delinquent employees of those proceedings are established by producing medical records. However, that is not the case here. Hence, the respondent-workman cannot plead victimization. 25. It is also noticed that pursuant to the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, the workman joined the service on 11.10.2017 and till the date of attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that the workman has received the wages after reinstatement pursuant to the award. In case, any payment is due to the workman till the date of dismissal, same shall be paid by the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25109 WP No. 17124 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15127 of 2017 Corporation within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 26. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition No.17124/2017 filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is allowed. (ii) Writ Petition No.15127/2017 filed by the workman is dismissed. (iii) The impugned order dated 18.08.2016 in Ref.No.30/2014 passed by Second Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is set-aside. (iv) The penalty of dismissal is upheld. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55