The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action, requiring substantiation of claims regarding illness with adequate evidence.

ORDER :

1. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Kantharaj V, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.

2. The short facts are as follows:

The respondent was a driver in the establishment of the corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly for the duty from 18.09.2013 onwards without prior permission or grant of leave. Hence, the Traffic Inspector informed the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager submitted the same to the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a call notice. Consequently, Articles of Charge were issued. The respondent did not submit his explanation. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer issued notice, and the respondent presented himself for preliminary inquiry. Since the respondent denied the charges, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to record the evidence of the parties. Despite the service of notice, the respondent remained absent, and ultimately, the Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the management. Thereafter, inquiry notices were issued notifying the date of hearing as 15.06.2016, which notice in fact was duly served on the respondent, and even thereafter, he remained absent. However, even after extending an opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Officer, the respondent did not appear, which resulted in the submission of the inquiry report on 16.11.2016 by the Inquiry Officer, thereby confiscating the right of defence holding that the respondent remained absent from 18.09.2013. In the meantime, the respondent sought permission to join the duty from 21.01.2015 onwards. Based on the Report, the second showcase notice was issued calling upon the respondent to submit his reply as to why action cannot be taken under the regulations. The respondent submitted a reply. The explanation was not satisfactory, and based on the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority decided to punish the respondent by passing a dismissal order for remaining absent for one year and three months and to treat the absent period as not on duty.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court in ID No.13/2017. The Labor Court held that the inquiry conducted by the corporation was not fair and proper. Parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 14.02.2020 allowed the claim statement. Under these circumstances, the corporation has filed the present writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

5. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions.

1. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. D. Purostham in W.A. No. 3497/2009 dated 16.08.2010.

2. North-Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashappa , (2006) 5 SCC 137 .

6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to unauthorized absence. The respondent remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 18.09.2013 onwards.

8. An 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. Absence without leave is a misconduct in industrial employment, warranting disciplinary punishment. No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right, and remaining absent without leave will constitute a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justified disci