ORDER

The Silk Agriculture Development Commissioner and Director of Silk has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 20.04.2017 in Ref. No.30/2016 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’ for short) at Annexure-B, whereby, the reference made by the Government dated 28.09.2013 and the claim statement filed by the workman were allowed-in- part, the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner was set-aside, directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to conduct the domestic enquiry against the workman for misconduct of unauthorized absence.

2. Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for the petitioners and Sri L. Shekar, learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

3. Respondent No.1 was working in petitioner No.2-Silk and Horticulture Department (the management for short) on temporary basis and on the act of misconduct that he was not working properly and he was habitual absent, several notices were issued to the workman and he was terminated for the unauthorized absence, in spite of several notices being served upon him, he has not reported to the duty. In continuation of his unauthorized absence, the department without having no other option, dismissed the workman from service on 16.01.2012. Consequently, matter was referred and the respondent approached the Labour Court, Mysuru by filing claim statement in Ref. No.30/2016, the Labour Court allowed the reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman into service.

4. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. The facts reveal that the respondent remained absent unauthorizedly and he was dismissed from the service from the department on 16.01.2012 for his unauthorized absence from 18.08.2007 to 16.01.2012. On perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court would indicate that the Labour Court has lost sight of the fact that the respondent has not even submitted a letter for leave for his absence for such a long period, more particularly from 18.08.2007 to 16.01.2012 and the documents produced by the respondent do not indicate or evidence the reasons for his unauthorized absence for the period from 18.08.2007 to 16.01.2012, the order directing to conduct domestic enquiry is against the material on record, which indicates show-cause notices were issued to the respondent to appear for enquiry and in spite of affording sufficient opportunities, he has not come forward for preliminary enquiry and the enquiry officer was left with no other option than to consider the material placed and hold that he was absent from duty unauthorizedly and it was grave misconduct as per the standing orders of the petitioner-Department.

6. An employee is under an obligation not to remain absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he was required to be at work by the terms of his contract of service. The workman has willfully and unauthorizedly remained absent from 18.08.2007 to 16.01.2012 without there being sufficient cause, the employee failed to show cause for his unauthorized absence for such a long period.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstances in the case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. B.K. Samangi1 at paragraph No.8 has held as under:

“8. Therefore, the question that would arise for consideration in the present case is, "whether the workman had willfully remained unauthorizedly absent without there being sufficient cause". The

1 W.A. No.3064/2018 D.D. 11.10.2022

material on record would go to show that the respondent-workman had remained unauthorizedly absent continuously for a period of 959 days i.e. from 01.05.2009 till 23.02.2012. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman had not sought any leave by filing necessary application before the competent authority during the aforesaid period. The res