Submission of voluntary retirement application does not entitle employee to relief from dismissal due to unauthorized absences without valid justification.

JUDMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5824/2020 (L-KSRTC), setting aside the award dated 11.04.2018 of the Principal District Judge, Tumkur ('Labour Court' for short) in I.D.No.4/2015.

2. We have heard Shri. M.C. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The appellant was employed as a driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short) on 07.06.1997. It was the case of the KSRTC in the writ petition that he had a history of unauthorized absences for which fines were imposed on him multiple times. He was once dismissed from service for unauthorized absence which was challenged in I.D.No.16/2011. The dismissal order was set aside and the appellant was directed to be reinstated in service with reduction of four increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, he was again unauthorisedly absent from 18.01.2013. The Articles of Charge were issued to him on 07.10.2013. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted and the charge of unauthorized absence was found proved. A second show-cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and after complying with due procedure, an order of dismissal was issued on 10.07.2015. The order was challenged by the appellant herein in I.D.No.4/2015.

4. The Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper but set aside the dismissal, directing the KSRTC to consider the appellant's application for voluntary retirement, which had allegedly been submitted during the enquiry proceedings.

5. Aggrieved by this direction, the KSRTC filed the writ petition. It was the contention of the KSRTC that once the Labour Court had held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper and since the appellant had failed to show any valid medical or other justification for his unauthorised absence, the setting aside of the dismissal order solely on the ground that the appellant had submitted an application for voluntary retirement was highly improper. It was contended that there is no vesting right in any employee to have an application for voluntary retirement considered favorably, since repeated disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the employee, his application for voluntary retirement could not have been considered at all. Therefore, it was asserted that the Labour Court's reasoning suffered from legal infirmities.

6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and observed that despite having been given a second chance through the Labour Court's earlier order in I.D.No.16/2011, which led to his reinstatement on 11.09.2012, the appellant again remained absent from 18.01.2013 to 07.10.2013. It was found that the appellant had a repeated history of unauthorized absence, and this was the second dismissal imposed on him. It was held that once the Labour Court had found the enquiry to be fair and proper and there was no evidence to justify the appellant's absence, the Labour Court could not have set aside the dismissal order. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has filed the present appeal.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that his absence with effect from 18.01.2013 was neither intentional nor deliberate. He was suffering from "R Lower Limb Buerger Disease and Low Back Ache", for which doctors advised continuous treatment, bed rest and to do light work. Despite submitting representations he was not assigned light duties. Due to his medical condition, he could not re