Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
Jyoti M, J
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC – Appellant
Versus
SHIVAJI BASAPPA DONGARE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 105377 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. M. Khannur
For the Respondents: Kalpana T. M.
Unauthorized absence from duty without a valid leave application or medical certificate constitutes misconduct in industrial employment, and a request for an alternate job does not justify such absence.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Employment - Unauthorized Absence - Absence without leave or legitimate justification constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action. (Para 16)
(B) Leave of Absence - Right to Leave - Leave is not a matter of right; failure to report for duty after the expiry of sanctioned leave is a disciplinary violation. (Para 16)
(C) Justification for Absence - Request for Alternate Employment - Mere submission of an application for an alternate job does not absolve an employee from the obligation to attend duty or justify unauthorized absence. (Para 17)
Issues: Whether the Labor Court erred in law by pardoning the workman’s unauthorized absence despite the lack of legitimate justification.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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:
S AA YUM BREENDsSADiAYi Egg UMn Site HBRadl NE by E UyN R DESHNURLHCKo AOIcG RUaH Nt Ri Ao Tn T O: AFKA
ORAL ORDER
Sri.M.M.Khannur, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kalpana. T.M., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.
The short facts are these:
The respondent was employed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was appointed on 10.11.1998 under the ex-servicemen quota. On 11.01.2017, he met with an accident and sustained a fracture, for which implants were inserted in his right leg. Consequently, he applied for leave. The leave period was extended from time to time, covering the period from 17.06.2017 to 15.03.2018, and he was required to report for duty on 16.03.2018. However, he failed to report on the said date.
The Corporation reported his absenteeism to the Divisional Controller. Thereafter, the Division Office, Huballi, issued a call letter on 23.04.2018 directing the respondent to join duty within 48 hours of receipt. Despite receipt of the call letter, the respondent did not report for duty. The Corporation, having no alternative, issued articles of charge on 10.07.2018. The respondent submitted a detailed reply, but the Corporation was not satisfied. Accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a departmental enquiry.
Following the inquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 09.03.2019. Upon receiving this report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a second show-cause notice to the respondent. Although the respondent submitted a reply, the Disciplinary Authority found it unsatisfactory and passed an order of dismissal on 27.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised a dispute in KID No.30/2019 before the Labor Court. The Labor Court vide award dated 06.03.2021 set aside the punishment order. The Corporation has assailed this award in this writ petition on several grounds as setout in the memorandum of writ petition.
Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award of the Labor Court is unsustainable in law.
Next, he submits that the impugned order is erroneous as it pardons serious misconduct established during the inquiry.
A further submission is made that the Labor Court, having held that the respondent had not submitted any leave application or extension of leave from 16.03.2018, erred in pardoning the misconduct of unauthorised absence.
It is vehemently contended that the Labor Court erred in its jurisdiction by considering the aspect of an alternate job for the workman, whereas the sole issue for consideration was whether the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. It is further submitted that the Corporation had already rejected the respondent’s request for an alternate job, making the Labor Court's inquiry into this aspect irrelevant and erroneous.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle, the award of the Labor Court is untenable.
Counsel for the respondent justified the award of the Labor Court.
Next, she submits that the respondent was an ex-serviceman and had participated in the Kargil War. As a result of the tank burst, he sustained severe burns, leading to a 40% certified permanent physical disability. On 11.01.2017, while on a weekly off, the respondent was involved in an accident, resulting in a fracture to his right leg. Due to a medical condition that rendered him immobile and necessitated hospitalization for treatment, he sought an alternate position.
It is contended that he is too old to secure another job. It has been vehemently contended that on April 13, 2018, an application for an alternate job/ position was made.
Lastly, she submits that the Labor Court ex
