IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 22818 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

EAST DIVISION,

DOMLUR TTMC BUS STAND,

BENGALURU - 560071,

BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

…PETITIONER

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

AND:

P.LAKSHMINARAYANA,

S/O. PAPANNA,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

Di gitally signed R/O. PAKARAHALLI,

by THEJAS

HUDUKULA POST,

KUMAR N

BANGARAPET TALUK,

Location: HIGH

COURT OF KOLAR DISTRICT - 563103.

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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 has appeared in person.

2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 16.12.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to the respondent is served. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

3. The brief facts are these:

The respondent was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation and he was placed on probation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 18.01.2015 onwards without prior permission. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. He was issued with call letter calling upon him to repot to duty. He did not respond to the same. He was issued with articles of charge. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The respondent did not attend the inquiry. Hence, he was notified of date of inquiry by way of paper publication in Prajavani and Vartha Bharathi daily on

20.08.2015. He did not attend the inquiry. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record, passed an order of punishment on 30.03.2016 and dismissed him from service.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.63/2017. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 31.12.2018 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits for the purpose of terminal benefits. The award passed by the Labor Court is called into question 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.

Counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the call letters sent to the respondent and the same may be placed on record.

Submission is noted. Memo along the call letters sent to the respondent is placed on record and perused the same with care.

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

6. 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., dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 18.01.2015 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.

A