- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50346 WP No. 1161 of 2021 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. 1161 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, NORTH DIVISION, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING, TTMC, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560022. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MANJUNATHA G., S/O GANGAPPA H., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KYASARAGHATTE, WATADA HOSALLI POST, NAGARAKERE HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561213. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATHISH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. L.SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50346 WP No. 1161 of 2021 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, and Sri. Satishchandra, counsel on behalf of the respondent, appeared 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 22.02.2014 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. Despite the notice, the respondent did not report for duty. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50346 WP No. 1161 of 2021 the inquiry proceedings; the respondent participated in the inquiry proceedings through the assistance of a co-worker; later, he remained absent from the inquiry proceedings. However, he submitted certain documents before the Inquiry Officer, stating that he had submitted a leave application because his father was unwell and had died. He also stated that his wife was pregnant, hence, he could not attend the duty. The inquiry officer submitted a finding holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued and taking note of the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 30.06.2015 and removed the name of the respondent from the list of trainee list. 3. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I D NO 17/2017. 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 28.05.2019 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50346 WP No. 1161 of 2021 Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care. 4. The point that requires consideration is, whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference? 5. 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 of Trainee's list. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 22.02.2014 onwards. 6. 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. 7. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50346 WP No. 1161 of 2021 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. 8. In the present case, the respondent did not submit the leave application. However, the Labor Court, taking a lenient view of the matter, condoned the misconduct, largely influenced by the socio-economic background or rural background of the workman. This is incorrect. The Labor Court committed a manifest error of law and fact by introducing and relying upon the 'rural background' of the workman as a factor in its determination, which is wholly extraneous and irrelevant to the core issues of the industrial dispute. The impugned award demonstrates a non-application of judicial mind to material facts and an application of irrelevant considerations, such as the workman's rural background, thus vitiating the entire decision-making process. I may venture to say that the Labor Court below has erred in its appreciation of the evidence by allowing itself to be swayed by sympathetic considerations - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50346 WP No. 1161 of 2021 related to the workman's origin, rather than confining its analysis to the established principles of labor law. 9. 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 evidence of the management was not rebutted by the respondent. The domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process of law and following the principles of natural justice. Hence, the finding on the preliminary issue is liable to be set aside. 10. Lastly, counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T., submits that a memo has been filed stating that the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 10.05.2022 onwards, and his name was removed from the trainees list on 20.02.2024. Counsel submits that the memo may be placed on record, and an appropriate order may be passed. 11. Submission is noted. The memo is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the name of the respondent was removed from the trainees list. The past and present conduct of the respondent would reveal that he is not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50346 WP No. 1161 of 2021 interested in discharging his duties diligently. Such an employee does not require any sympathy, much less a misplaced sympathy. 12. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 17.07.2018 on the domestic inquiry is quashed. The award dated 28.05.2019, passed by the Labor Court Bangalore, in I.D.NO.17/2017, is quashed. The punishment order dated 30.06.2015 is confirmed. 13. 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 SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14