- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 13596 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER CENTRAL OFFICE, NORTH EAST ZONE BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, B.M.T.C, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. NOW REPRESENTED BY BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MANOHAR M.R., S/O. SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR, T.NO.11380, D-24, BMTC BENGALURU, R/AT MADANAHALLI, YELAGALABURI POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 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: ORAL ORDER Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 04.07.2023. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to the respondent is served. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The brief facts are these: The respondent was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 21.09.2016 onwards without intimation, without applying for leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. The Assistant Traffic Superintendent reported the same to the Depot Manager. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 Depot Manager reported the same to the Divisional Controller. He was issued with call notice with instructions to report to duty, but the respondent failed to report for duty. He was issued with articles of charge. The respondent did not submit his explanation to the articles of charge, nor he joined the duty. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry Officer. He did not actively participated in the inquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the respondent sought permission to join duty. He was permitted to join duty on pending inquiry on 06.03.2018. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice. The respondent submitted his reply to the same. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material evidence on record, passed an order of punishment on 30.04.2019 and dismissed him from service and treated the period of absence from 21.09.2016 to 06.03.2018 as not on duty and not entitle for gratuity benefits for the said post. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.40/2019. The Labor Court held that the domestic - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labor Court vide award dated 30.11.2022 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits for the purpose of terminal benefits subject to withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect. It was also ordered that he is not entitled for backwages. The award passed by the Labor Court is called into question 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. Counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the call letter sent to the respondent and the same may be placed on record. Submission is noted. Memo along the call letter sent to the respondent is placed on record and perused the same with care. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 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 a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 21.09.2016 onwards. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 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. In the present case, the delinquent remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority. The workman contended that he was unwell and hence, he could not attend the duty. It is relevant to note that he did not furnish any medical documents; in the absence of supporting documents the Labor Court erroneously pardoned the misconduct. The Labor Court misdirected itself by giving undue weight to the length of service. The age is not a determinative criteria for modifying a punishment order; the gravity of the offences and the principles of proportionality must prevail. Moreover, length of service is not a mitigating factor in the disciplinary matter. The severity of the misconduct overrides any consideration of the employees length of service; mitigating factors, such as duration of employment, are not applicable in case of gross misconduct. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly. Lastly, counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., submits that this Court vide order dated:04.07.2023, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. Counsel further submits that a memo has been filed stating that, the Corporation has issued call letter to the respondent to report for duty. However, he did not report for duty as of today. Counsel, therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record. Memo is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the Corporation has issued call letter to the respondent to report for duty. However, he did not report for duty as of today. 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. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47626 WP No. 13596 of 2023 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order award dated:30.11.2022, passed by the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.40/2019 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The order of punishment dated 30.04.2019 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36