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.M.M.Khannur, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.S.Haravi, counsel for the respondents, have appeared in person.

2. The brief facts are these:

The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 06.04.2003 to 01.07.2004. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and notice was issued. However, he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. In the absence of any justification for his unauthorised absence, the Enquiry Officer, after granting sufficient opportunity, submitted the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, after considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, issued notice to the respondent seeking his explanation on the findings of the report. Since no reply was submitted by the respondent even before the disciplinary authority, and taking note of the material available on record, the disciplinary authority proceeded to dismiss him from service on 21.03.2005. Thereafter, he sought conciliation, but the conciliation proceedings failed. The respondent raised a dispute in Reference No.31/2007. The Labor Court passed the award on 28.08.2010. The award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal, despite adverting to the material on record, has erroneously held that the order of the disciplinary authority is unjust, illegal, and arbitrary, and liable to be set-aside. He submits that such a finding is contrary to the record and warrants for interference. He further contends that, viewed from any angle, the award of the Labor Court is untenable in law.

Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was unable to file a reply or participate in the inquiry proceedings due to hospitalization following an accident. He further contends that the Tribunal properly analyzed the evidence to set aside the punishment, warranting no interference. Finally, counsel points out that there was a delay in filing the writ petition itself.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

5. The sole issue for determination is whether the Impugned Award warrants judicial intervention.

6. The crux of this matter centres on a narrow dispute regarding unauthorized absence. While the respondent claims to have been hospitalized following an accident and alleges that a leave application was submitted, the Corporation directly counters this, asserting that no such application was filed and that the respondent's absence was not authorized.

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 a leave of absence as a matter of right, and remaining absent without leave will constitute a disciplinary violation. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action against the delinquent workman.

The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct or absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, the delinquent remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority.

The respondent was unauthorizedly absent from 06.04.2003 to 01.07.2004 without leave or permission, offering no justification. The Labor Court erred in finding perversity, having already acknowledged the respondent’s lack of direct evidence for absence and t