JUDGMENT :

Mr. Prasanna B. Varale, C.J. - The appeal is filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2022, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 26454/2018.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.

3. The appellant was working as a conductor in the respondent-Corporation. She remained unauthorizedly absent from duty. The disciplinary authority issued a charge-sheet to the appellant for which the appellant suitably replied. The respondent being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the appellant, decided to initiate domestic enquiry. The respondent appointed enquiry officer for conducting domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and observed that the charges leveled against the appellant are proved and submitted a report to the respondent. The respondent acting on the findings of the enquiry officer, passed an order of dismissal from service. The appellant aggrieved by the order of dismissal, raised a dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.41/2016.

The respondent filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the appellant remained unauthorizedly absent from 19.03.2011 without prior permission and contended that show-cause notice was issued. The appellant replied to the show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the appellant, decided to initiate domestic enquiry against the appellant. The disciplinary authority issued article of charges ot the appellant. The appellant submitted a reply. The disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the reply, decided to hold an enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. The disciplinary authority on the findings submitted by the enquiry officer, passed an order of termination. Hence the order of dismissal passed by the respondent is in accordance with law. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

The labour Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the second party corporation against the first party is fair and proper?

2. Whether the first party proves that the order of dismissal under No.KARASA/BENKEVI/GAIHAHB/57/16/2953/16-17 dtd.09.12.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside?

3. What order or award?

Issue No.1 was treated as preliminary issue and answered in negative holding that the enquiry conducted against the appellant is not fair and proper. Thereafter respondent examined two witnesses as MW-2 and MW-3 and got marked documents Ex.M15 to M19. The appellant examined herself as WW-1 and no documents were marked in the evidence. The labour Court after recording the evidence and considering the material on record held that the appellant fails to prove that the order of dismissal is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the labour Court dismissed the claim petition vide award dated 17.03.2018. the appellant aggrieved by the award passed by the labour Court in I.D.No.41/2016, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.26454/2018. The learned Single Judge on re-appreciation of material on record, confirmed the award passed by the labour Court vide order dated 10.11.2022. The appellant aggrieved by the order passed the writ petition, has filed this appeal

4. Learned counsel for the appellant though made an attempt to submit before this Court that the explanation for the unauthorized absence during the year 2015-16 provided by the appellant and the past record of the appellant ought not to have been considered by the learned Single Judge, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ appeal.

5. P