Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 11465 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE) AND: K.DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, B NO.2714, KSRTC, HARAPPANAHALLI DEPOT, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE,
Digitally signed by REP. BY B.DHANAPALAKSHA, PREMCHANDRA MR SECRETARY, KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, Location: High DAVANAGERE-577 001. Court of Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR.V.B., ADVOCATE) 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: -2-
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI) Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vijaya Kumar.V.B., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.
2. The short facts are these. The respondent was working as a Conductor in the
establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly with effect from 06.01.2011 till the order of dismissal i.e., 08.05.2012. On 31.01.2011 the Depot Manager sent a report to the Divisional Controller intimating his unauthorized absence. Based on the report of the Depot Manager, a call letter was issued calling upon him to report to
duty. He was issued with Articles of charges alleging unauthorized absence. He submitted his reply to the Articles of Charge. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. On 21.03.2012 he was furnished with the findings of the inquiry officer and a second show cause notice was issued along with the history sheet of 24 cases of absence. The respondent submitted his reply to the findings of
-3- the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 08.05.2012 imposed an order of punishment and dismissed him from service. After a lapse of almost two years, the respondent
challenged the order of dismissal by raising a dispute. The same was referred to the Labor Court, Hubballi for adjudication in K.I.D. No.220/2014. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the corporation was fair and proper. The Labor Court vide award dated 26.02.2018 set aside the order of punishment directed reinstatement and denied the relief of back-wages, continuity of service, and consequential benefits. The corporation has questioned It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of a Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. -4-
4. The short question that would arise for my consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. Counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar.V.B., in presenting his
arguments justified the award of the Labor Court. He argued by saying that the workman submitted a leave letter, however, the same was not considered by the Corporation. He vehemently contended that the Corporation did not apply to Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. Counsel, therefore, submits that the petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The respondent came under disciplinary inquiry
proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence, and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. The respondent remained absent from 06.01.2011 to 08.05.2012 is not in dispute. The workman contended that he was unwell during this period. As per Regulation 54 of KSRTC Leave Rules, he was required to submit a leave application along with the medical certificate. The medical certificate furnished by him reflected that he is fit to
-5- resume duty from 13.04.2011. It is noticed that a call letter dated 10.06.2011 was issued to him but he did not respond. Hence, the contention that he was unwell is satisfactorily hopeless. Furthermore, the respondent is a chronic absentee. He had remained absent from duty on 24 occasions. He was given many opportunities to improve himself by imposing minor punishments. However, he did not improve. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself
from work without compelling 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 a misconduct justified 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.
-6- The finding of the Labor Court that the corporation has not led evidence refuting the statement made by the respondent in his claim statement is also incorrect. The reason is simple. The law is well-settled that if the domestic inquiry is
held fair and proper, there is no need to lead evidence on the
merits. What is required to be considered is the appreciation of the findings of the inquiry officer and to conclude as to whether the order of dismissal was justified in the circumstances of the case. As already noted above, the respondent remained absent from duty on twenty-four occasions in the past. Needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the order of dismissal was made. I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Labor Court is unsustainable in law. Therefore, I deem it proper to quash the award of the Labor Court.
6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 26.02.2018 was passed by the Court of the Labor Court, -7- Hubballi in K.I.D.No.220/2014 vide Annexure-C is quashed. The
order of dismissal is confirmed.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim
order granted if any stands discharged and the pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9