- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43223 WP No. 59324 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 59324 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRIRAMAPPA, S/O. ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DONNAHALLI, KUNDALAGURKI POST, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 577 563. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE) 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:43223 WP No. 59324 of 2013 ORAL ORDER Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Sri.V.S.Naik., counsel for the respondent has appeared through video conferencing. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent was a Driver cum Conductor on Training in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with articles of charge alleging unauthorized absence from 04.09.2009 to 27.02.2010. He was subjected to disciplinary inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. On 29.03.2010, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and passed the order of punishment removing the name of the respondent from the list of trainee driver cum conductors. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute before the II Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D No.33/2010. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43223 WP No. 59324 of 2013 conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 09.04.2013 set-aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The Corporation has assailed the award in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. 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 stated and they 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., removed his name from the list of trainee driver cum conductors. 6. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43223 WP No. 59324 of 2013 absent from duty from 04.09.2009 to 27.02.2010. 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 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. The respondent attempted to contend that he was suffering from Viral Hepatitis and hence, he was unable to report to duty. He also contended that he furnished medical certificate in this regard. The Labor Court accepted the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43223 WP No. 59324 of 2013 contention and concluded that the Inquiry Officer ignored the medical certificate while submitting his findings and proceeded to set-aside the order of removal. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. The Labor Court has failed to notice that the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment by taking into consideration the medical certificate furnished by the workman. Moreover, a review of the available records does not confirm the patient's in-patient or out-patient status. Furthermore, the Labour Court has over-looked the fact that the respondent is an habitual absentee. The same is evident from his past conduct as he remained unauthorizedly absent on four occasions and despite providing him sufficient opportunity to reform his conduct, there was no improvement. Needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. As already noted above, the workman was involved in almost four unauthorized absenteeism case in the past. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of dismissal. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43223 WP No. 59324 of 2013 to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly. 7. Lastly, counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the workman sought 17B wages, however the Corporation asked him to report to duty and accordingly, the respondent reported to duty. However, even after reinstatement, he remained unauthorizedly absent to duty and he has been removed from service on 17.12.2018. Counsel submits that she has filed a memo furnishing the order of dismissal dated 17.12.2018 and the same may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed. Submission is noted. Memo furnishing the order of dismissal dated 17.12.2018 is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the respondent is dismissed from service on 17.12.2018. The past and present 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43223 WP No. 59324 of 2013 stated above, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 09.04.2013 passed by the II Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.33/2010 vide Annexure-G is quashed. The order of punishment dated 29.03.2010 removing the name of the respondent from the list of trainee driver cum conductors is confirmed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48