R.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The petitioner, Mr. Chandrakantha, is aggrieved by the award dated 22.06.2017, passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru, whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, and has upheld the dismissal order passed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC for short).

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 12.11.2004, the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver-cum-conductor by the KSRTC. However, he remained unauthorizedly absent from 15.10.2014 till 26.11.2015, i.e., for over a period of one year. Therefore, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet; a departmental enquiry was conducted. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, by order dated 26.11.2015, the petitioner was dismissed from his service. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said dismissal order, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). However, during the pendency of the dispute before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Labour Court. He neither examined a witness, nor submitted any document in order to buttress his case. On the other hand, the KSRTC did submit nineteen documents, although it did not examine any witness. After going through the documentary evidence submitted by the KSRTC, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim statement of the petitioner. Hence the present petition before this Court.

3. Mr. M.C. Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that since the petitioner's counsel Mr. MCB had retired from the case, after his retirement, the petitioner had no way of knowing the relevant dates of the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Labour Court in order to buttress his case. Hence the fault does not lie with the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to prove his case, the impugned award should be set aside by this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel, and perused the impugned award.

5. It is, indeed, trite to state that a litigant has to be vigilant with regard to his rights and interest. A litigant who is slack in defending his rights, cannot be heard to complain that an opportunity of hearing has been denied to him. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the petitioner's advocate had retired after seeking the petitioner's permission. Therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the fact that his advocate had retired from his case. Hence the petitioner was duty-bound to engage the services of another counsel, or to personally appear before the learned Labour Court. But, for reasons best known to the petitioner, he chose to follow neither of these two options. According to the impugned award, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner by the learned Labour Court to adduce his evidence in support of his plea made in the claim statement. Even after his counsel had retired, opportunities had been given to the petitioner to establish his case. But the petitioner choose to be absent from the proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that opportunity was not given to the petitioner to prove his case.

6. Needless to say, the Labour Court could not have kept the case pending even after giving ample opportunities to the petitioner to establish his case. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was justified in relying on the documentary evidence produced by the KSRTC. According to the KSRTC, the petitioner was not only absent from 15.10.2014 till 26.11.2015, but was also absent on seven previous occasions. For those seven previous mis-conducts, the petitioner had been punished lightly. Therefore, the KSRTC was certainly justified in dismissing the petitioner from service, as the petitioner refused to improve his conduct despite being punished light