Unauthorized absence from work without leave constitutes industrial misconduct. Disciplinary authorities have the discretion to impose punishments proportionate to the specific case, and courts should not interfere with disciplinary findings unless perverse, particularly when evidence reflects a history of absence.

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.B.L.Sanjeev, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Naveen Kumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, for the respondent, appeared in person.

2. The petition averments are as follows:

The respondent was working as a driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 25.01.2010 to 30.06.2010. The Articles of Charge were issued. The inquiry officer was appointed and submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment order, and the respondent was dismissed from service on 01.10.2012.

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

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

5. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under 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 25.01.2010 to 30.06.2010.

6. 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.

7. 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 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 or absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case.

8. The respondent contended that he was suffering from ill-health and furnished medical documents before the Labor Court. The Labor Court erred in placing reliance on the medical document, as the medical document has no relevance for the absent period. Moreover, the medical certificate was not accompanied by the required clinical prescription. The Labor Court placed reliance on Exs.W5 to 8 to conclude that the order of punishment is discriminatory in nature. This is erroneous. The Labor Court has failed to notice that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to case. It is perhaps well to note that each case depends on the severity of the misconduct, coupled with the worker's history. The law is well settled that a uniform yardstick cannot be applied to all cases of misconduct. The Labor Court's finding is unsustainable due to a failure to consider all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. I may venture to say that the Labor Court failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters.

Lastly, counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev submits that by virtue of an interim order, the respondent was reinstated to duty. However, even after reinstatement, he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty. Counsel submits that he has filed a memo, and the same may be placed on record, and an