IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 9169 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAMAKRISHNA

S/O PEDDANNA,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

HARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,

JIGANI POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

B.M.T.C., SOUTH DIVISION / REGION,

CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR,

Di gitally signed BENGALURU - 560027.

by THEJAS …RESPONDENT

KUMAR N

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

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA 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

Sri Kantharaja V., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

2. The writ petition is filed to quash the award dated

11.12.2018, passed by the III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in ID No.25/2017 vide Annexure-J. 3. The short facts are these:

The petitioner was working as a driver. He remained absent from duty from 19.08.2011 without prior intimation, permission or sanction of leave. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. The inquiry was conducted. Based on the material evidence on records, the inquiry submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority, taking note of the findings of the inquiry officer, passed an order of punishment on 03.01.2015 and dismissed the respondent from service.

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court in I.D.No.25/2017. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated 11.12.2018 rejected the claim petition. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has assailed the award of the Labour Court in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

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

5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the petitioner came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., he was dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the petitioner was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 19.08.2011 onwards.

7. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate, if the leave is sought on 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 a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying 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.

8. The petitioner made an effort to furnish certain medical documents for the Labour Court's consideration, but the Court, after detailed deliberation (in extenso), refused to accept the claim. In my view, the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim. The reason is simple. The petitioner remained absent from duty without authorization from 2011 onwards, subsequently submitting medical certificates that were dated after the periods of absence, effectively rendering them retrospective justifications.

9. The petitioner placed considerable rel