An employee's unauthorised absence without sufficient evidence of illness can justify dismissal, and the absence of a formal inquiry does not establish grounds for overturning the decision if the factual basis for absence is not adequately proven.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed challenging the award rejecting the reference. In terms of the impugned award dated 07.08.2018, the Labour Court rejected the reference on the premise that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 22.01.2011 to 13.05.2012.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking through the facts of the case would submit that there is no dispute relating to the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the petitioner and the petitioner was suffering from peripheral neuritis which prevented the petitioner from attending the duty. The petitioner submitted leave application to the concerned authority through an acquaintance and though the leave application has reached the concerned officer, application is not considered. The petitioner was in Mangalore undergoing treatment for the peripheral neuritis and it appears that a notice was issued to the petitioner asking for his explanation for unauthorised absence and said notice is not served on the petitioner as he was not residing in the place on account of his treatment and it also appears that, a notice is affixed to the conspicuous part of his residence where he was not residing and thereafter without there being any enquiry, the order came to be passed holding that the petitioner has abandoned his service.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has raised the industrial dispute. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner took a specific contention that domestic enquiry was not held and the Labour Court was required to frame an issue as to the fairness of the enquiry if any held and without there being any such issue, the Labour Court proceeded to hold trial on issue No.2 and because of this, the petitioner could not lead proper evidence relating to petitioner's ailment and absence which was justified on account of ailment from 22.01.2011 to 13.05.2012.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent/employer was required to hold enquiry relating to the absence and only after considering the reasons for absence, the appropriate order could not have been passed.

5. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind while imposing the penalty of treating the petitioner's conduct as abandoning service. The penalty imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, is the submission.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner has admitted that he remained unauthorisedly absent for one year four months and he did not respond to the show cause notice and he did not lead acceptable evidence relating to illness before the Labour Court despite opportunity being given to him.

7. To substantiate the contention relating to peripheral neuritis, the petitioner has produced only the xerox copies of medical certificates which have been rightly rejected by the Labour Court and Labour Court has also noticed that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner do not inspire confidence of the Labour Court to hold that the petitioner was suffering from an ailment which prevented the petitioner from not attending the duty for one year, four months.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another , (1979) 3 SCC 371 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs S. Kiran , W.A. No. 217/2023 .

9. This Court has co