- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50411 WP No. 38503 of 2018 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. 38503 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU - 570015 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: S.RAVI, S/O S.NAGA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O 373A, III CROSS, GAYATRIPURAM, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570019. …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 FINAL HEARING, 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:50411 WP No. 38503 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Smt. Renuka H.R., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent received the court notice. However, he has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in- person. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The respondent was a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 14.11.2011 onwards without prior permission. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. The articles of charge were issued to the respondent. The respondent did not reply. However, he reported to duty on 03.04.2012. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. 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 along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not reply. The disciplinary authority, taking note of the material on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50411 WP No. 38503 of 2018 record, passed an order of punishment on 19.03.2013 and dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Mysore in Reference No.70/2016. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 05.12.2017 set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, consequential benefits with denial of three increments with cumulative effect but without any back wages. The award passed by the Labour Court is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The point that requires consideration is, whether the award passed by the Labour Court requires interference? 5. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50411 WP No. 38503 of 2018 disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct, i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., dismissal from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 14.11.2011. 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. 6. 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 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. In the present case, the delinquent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50411 WP No. 38503 of 2018 remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority. 7. The workman contended that he had backache and had applied for leave. The Labour Court observed that the workman failed to submit a leave application, but condoned the absenteeism. This is unsustainable in law. Once the finding of misconduct is upheld or affirmed, the court is generally functus officio regarding the quantum of punishment and cannot easily set aside the punishment order. The Labour Court disregarded this crucial aspect and summarily set aside the punishment order. 8. Furthermore, the Labour Court placed reliance on Exs.W1 to W6 to conclude that the order of punishment is discriminatory in nature. This is erroneous. The Labour Court has failed to notice that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to case. It is perhaps well to observe that each case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the worker. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50411 WP No. 38503 of 2018 9. Needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandatory requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. In the present case, the delinquent was involved in six to seven cases in the past. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of punishment. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly. 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. 10. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Mysore, in Reference No 70/2016 is set aside. The punishment order is confirmed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50411 WP No. 38503 of 2018 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.: 32