- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. DEVAPPA T, S/O THIPPANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT KOMANURU, SAJALAGADDA POST, LINGASUGURU TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 127 KARNATAKA. PRESENT ADDRESS AT: BYRATHI VILLAGE, NO. 107, NEAR SRI VEERAJANEYA TEMPLE, DODDAGUBBI POST, BENGALURU - 560 077. KARNATAKA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERESHA E., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, NORTH EAST DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. KARNATAKA. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, R Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:08.11.2024 IN WP No.14318/2024(L-KSRTC) OF THE SINGLE BENCH AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The respondent - employee in W.P.No.14318/2024 is before us in this appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the writ Court. 2. The Writ Court under the impugned order allowed the Writ Petition filed by the employer- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 Corporation, quashing the award dated 29.11.2023 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore1, in ID.No.29/2021 (Annexure-A) and confirmed the order of dismissal dated 31.08.2020. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court. 4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: The respondent claims that, he has joined the services under the petitioner as a Driver cum Conductor in the year 2006 and maintained blemishless service records and during the last week of November, 2017, because of illness, he could not report to duty. He claims to have sent a leave letter to the depot and informed about his indisposed state and requested to treat the absence period as leave upto the date of report for duty and under the impression that his request was acceded, he had not 1 the LC, for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 joined the duty. After recovering from illness, he had submitted a duty report along with medical records and fitness certificate, but the case worker of the Corporation informed him that, an inquiry is proposed against him and after completion of inquiry, he would be permitted to report to duty. 5. He further claims that on the false report of the Corporation, articles of charges have been issued against him, to which he has submitted his reply explaining circumstances under which he was forced to remain absent to duty. A domestic enquiry was held and ended as the charges were proved against the employee. Relying on the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority of the Corporation dismissed him from service on 31.08.2020. It is the further case of the respondent that the dismissal order is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and also discriminate. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 6. Aggrieved by the order, he approached the Appellate Authority. As there was no order was passed by the Appellate Authority, he had raised a dispute under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, before the Labour and Conciliation Officer. 7. Since the petitioner did not appear before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority issued an endorsement to the respondent to approach the LC, as such the reference raised is in time. Before the LC, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order of dismissal and for a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service along with back wages and other benefits to which he is entitled. 8. After notice, the Corporation appeared and filed its counter statement contending that, the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent from duties without obtaining any permission from 24.11.2017 to 17.04.2018 i.e., for a period of 145 days continuously without the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 leave sanctioned by the appropriate authority. In the interregnum, a report was submitted by the Depot Manager on 04.12.2017 in that regard. The disciplinary authority on the said report, issued a call notice on 09.12.2017 to the respondent with a clear instruction to report to duty else disciplinary action will be probed against him. However, the respondent failed to give any reply regarding the absenteeism called in the notice. Thereafter, Articles of charge came to be issued on 17.04.2018. As the reply forwarded by the employee was not satisfactory, the domestic enquiry was held and conducted after observing all fair and proper opportunities, keeping in view the principles of natural justice. Based on the domestic enquiry report and considering the reply to the said report by the respondent, the disciplinary authority passed order of dismissal which is in accordance with law and in the interest of Corporation and, denied all other allegations stated in the claim petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 9. On the completion of pleadings, the Labour Court framed the issues on 07.03.2022 and 16.11.2022. The issue framed on 07.03.2022 with regard to enquiry as fair and proper, treated as preliminary issue and answered in favour of Corporation on 17.10.2022. Subsequently on 06.11.2022, three issues have been framed which reads as under: 1. "Whether the second party justified the dismissal order? 2. Whether the first party proves the dismissal order passed by the second party? 3. What relief the first party is entitled to?" 10. On the preliminary issue on the inquiry, the Corporation examined a witness as MW1 and produced in all 19 documents which were marked as Ex.M1 to Ex.M19, neither any evidence nor any document placed by the respondent-employee. Accordingly, the said issue was answered as stated above. On the other issues, the respondent-employee examined as WW1 and marked four documents as Ex.W1 to Ex.W4 and closed his side. The employer-Corporation examined a witness as MW2 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 produced additional documents which were marked as Ex.M20 to Ex.M26. 11. The Labour Court after hearing the parties, answered Issue No.1 framed on 16.11.2022 in the 'negative' and issue No.2 in the 'affirmative' and in favour of the employee and allowed the claim petition in-part, setting aside the order of dismissal, directing the employer Corporation to reinstate the employee to his original post within 30 days, with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. However, with a direction to withhold two annual increments of the employee without cumulative effect, further, holding that the employee is not entitled for any back wages. 12. The LC rests its findings on the reasons culminated in paragraph Nos.20 to 23 to hold the issue No.1 against the Corporation stating that the employer- Corporation has not produced any document except the history sheet to establish the earlier absenteeism against - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 the employee and considering the fact that the employee was serving the Corporation since 2006 and in view of his dismissal he became unemployed, considering all these facts and in view of the peculiar facts involved in the case and relying on the judgments placed on by the employee, concluded that the employee has made out a case that the punishment of dismissal imposed against the employee is disproportionate to the proved misconduct of absenteeism. 13. The LC relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KRUSHNAKANT B.PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1633, to hold that the employee has proved that the absence was not wilful, which the Corporation has failed to prove and in the absence of a finding on such a conduct, set-aside the order of dismissal exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, converting the same to the punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect and without back wages, further directed the Corporation to reinstate the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 respondent-employee to his original post with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 14. The order of the LC is the subject matter before the Writ Court in WP.No.14318/2024. The Writ Court exercising judicial review has held that the employee, despite notice calling upon him to report to duty, did not report to duty and despite he was notified of the inquiry proceedings, he did not appear before the enquiry officer. However, the employee appeared before the Corporation and on his request, he was permitted to report to duty on 17.04.2018, on his statement that he was suffering from back pain, as such not attended duty till then. The Writ Court observed that though the workman attempted to contend that he was suffering from back pain however, he has not produced any medical records to that effect before the enquiry officer or before the Labour Court, instead on 02.04.2018, he appeared before the Corporation and requested to permit him to report to duty by furnishing a medical and fitness certificate. The Writ Court also - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 observed regarding the medical certificate produced by the employee wherein the O.P.D Surgeon of Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital certified that the employee was suffering from back pain from 25.11.2017 to 01.04.2018 and he is fit to resume duty from 02.04.2018, but states that the workman did not furnish medical reports to substantiate his claim and on that account. 15. The Writ Court further observed that the 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 and absence without leave is a misconduct in industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment and no employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining absent without any permission or sanction and the same constitute violation of discipline as such, the quantum of punishment in the case of such a misconduct is justified. Further, observing that there is past history of absenteeism held that the Tribunal, while exercising power - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 under Section 11-A of I.D Act granted misplaced sympathy. Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition quashing the order passed by the LC and confirmed the order of dismissal. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is challenged before us in this present appeal. 16. Heard Sri.Veeresha.E, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Smt.Renuka.H.R, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 17. It is trite that the employer must prove that the absent is wilful on the part of the employee and the same amounts to abandonment of employment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in KRUSHNAKANT B.PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER has held as under: 'In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be difference eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour becoming of a - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 Government servant. Thus when the appellants was charged of failure of devotion to duty and behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. Thus when the appellants was charged of failure of devotion to duty and behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant on account of his unauthorised absence from duty and without finding that the absence was wilful, he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was liable to be set aside." 18. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case clearly shows that there is no finding recorded by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority that the absenteeism is wilful and amounts to abandonment of employment. The Tribunal having considered the entire material before it, exercised the discretion enjoined with it under Section 11-A of ID Act. The Tribunal finds that the punishment imposed is grossly harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and the absent to duty has been explained by the employee by producing the medical records stating that he was suffering from acute back pain and not in a position to attend. In the facts and circumstances, perhaps the absence to duty may not amount to wilful Absenteeism which amounts to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 abandonment of employment. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KRUSHNAKANT B.PARMAR stated supra, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has properly exercised the power enjoined under Section 11-A of ID Act, which does not suffer from any irrationality or error or perversity. 19. The Writ Court, while exercising judicial review, ought to have considered the effect of Section 11-A enjoined with the Court in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the absence of finding to the effect that the absenteeism is wilful or the same amounts to abandonment of employment, the Writ Court erred in exercising the judicial review enjoined with it while interfering with the order of the LC. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19055-DB WA No. 284 of 2025 ii. The order passed by the writ Court dated 08.11.2024 in WP.No.14318/2024 is set- aside. iii. Petition filed by the employer is dismissed, restoring the order passed by the Labour Court dated 29.11.2023. iv. The petitioner-Corporation shall comply with the order passed by the Labour Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18