IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 11036 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHIKKABALAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER:

KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. M.B.KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O. LATE BYRAPPA M., Digitally signed by THEJAS DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR KUMAR N TOKEN NO.2546, Location: HIGH R/AT: 9^TH BLOCK, COURT OF SEVEN HILLS SCHOOL ROAD, KARNATAKA BAGEPALLI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.J.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE)

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

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Sanjeev.B.L., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Guruprasad.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.A.J.Srinivasan., for the respondent have appeared in person.

2. The brief facts are these:

The respondent joined the service of the corporation as a Driver cum Conductor. He was issued with articles of charge for the misconduct of unauthorized absence from 22.06.2010 till 22.02.2011. He was subjected to domestic inquiry. The Inquiry Officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. On 05.10.2012, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and passed the order of punishment dismissing the respondent from service.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D No.23/2013. The Labor Court vide order dated 06.08.2014 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 29.08.2015 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the respondent. The order on preliminary issue and the award are called into question 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 and the records with care.

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

5. The facts are sufficiently stated and they 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., dismissed from service.

6. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence.

The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent from duty from 22.06.2010 till 21.02.2011. 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 absent without leave will constitute violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes a misconduct justified disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct of absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case.

The respondent attempted to contend that he was suffering from bone problems and hence, he was unable to report to duty. He also contended that he furnished medical certificates in this regard. The Labor Court concluded that the Corporation has not considered the explanation given by the respondent. This is untenable. The rea