IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 22797 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M.S.VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. SHANKAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. MAKANAHALLI, Digitally signed VIGNASANTHE POST, by THEJAS KUMAR N NONABINAKERE HOBLI, Location: HIGH TIPTUR TALUK, COURT OF TUMKUR DISTRICT-572224.

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

2. The short facts are these:

The respondent was selected for the post of Driver cum conductor and was placed on training. He remained absent from duty from 05.03.2014 without prior intimation or permission or sanction of leave. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. The respondent was issued with call letter calling upon him to report to duty. He was issued with show cause notice alleging absence from duty. He did not submit his reply. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer, but he did not submit his reply. The disciplinary authority taking note of the findings of the inquiry officer and also the past conduct, passed an order of punishment on 20.02.2015 and removed his name from the list of Trainee Driver Cum Conductor.

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in I.D.No.22/2018. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labor Court vide award dated 26.12.2019 set-aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the respondent without continuity of service and consequential benefits and without backwages. The Corporation has assailed the award of the Labor Court in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-

out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

Counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the true copies of certain documents and the same may be placed on record.

Submission is noted. Memo along with true copies of the documents is placed on record and perused the same with care.

4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

5. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., removed his name from the list of Trainee Driver Cum Conductor. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 05.03.2014 onwards.

It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds.

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 abse