Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Govindappa

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/12334/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC challenged a Labour Court award reinstating a trainee Driver-cum-Conductor removed for unauthorized absence. The High Court held absence without leave is misconduct, the workman proved no ill-health, and the three-year delay in raising the dispute was inordinate; it set aside the award.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 25.05.2022 in I.D.No.10/2018 quashed by writ of certiorari; order of removal dated 17.01.2015 confirmed; interim order discharged.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 12334 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

GOVINDAPPA S/O VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KATEGARAHALLI VILLAGE, DAPPARTHI POST, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101.

¶13

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶21

Notice to the respondent was ordered on 23.08.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶22

2. The short facts are these:

¶23

The respondent was a Driver Cum Conductor on job training in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 13.08.2014. Based on the report submitted by the Depot Manager on 23.08.2014, he was issued with a Call letter and a show cause notice dated 01.10.2014. He did not submit his reply to the show cause notice or the call letter. To provide an opportunity to the respondent, a summary enquiry was fixed by appointing an inquiry officer. He did not respond to the inquiry notice, hence he was notified of the date of enquiry by way of paper publication in Kannada Prabha Daily, to which he did not respond. Hence, the inquiry was conducted by placing him ex-

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶25

parte . The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charge of absence against the respondent stood established. The respondent was issued with an endorsement dated 05.12.2014 along with the findings of the enquiry officer to show cause as to why punishment should not be imposed against him by accepting the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not submit his reply. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material evidence on record, imposed an order of punishment on 17.01.2015 and removed his name from the list of trainee-Driver-cum-Conductor, consequently the right to claim permanent appointment in the Corporation was also forfeited.

¶26

After a lapse of almost three years, the respondent raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Labor Court, Kolar in I.D No.10/2018 for adjudication. The Corporation upon receipt of notice filed its counter statement. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labor Court vide award dated 25.05.2022 set aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement with continuity of

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶28

service with all other consequential benefits, except backwages. The Management was also directed to regulate the period of absence in accordance with the law. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶29

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶30

with care.

¶31

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

¶32

The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that 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., removed his name from the list of trainee Driver-cum-Conductor, consequently the right to claim permanent appointment in the Corporation was also forfeited.

¶33

The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 13.08.2014 onwards. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶35

application was submitted, even if it is submitted that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds.

¶36

The workman attempted to contend before the Labour Court that he was suffering from viral hepatitis (Jaundice), viral fever and Doctor advised him to take bed rest. Hence, he could not attend the duty. However, he did not furnish any medical documents to substantiate his claim either before the inquiry officer or before the Labor Court. It is pivotal to note that he did not choose to examine himself to substantiate his claim. The Labor Court concluded that the respondent had not furnished any documents to substantiate his case, erroneously proceeded further in the matter and held that the absence was not willful and the same was due to ill-health. This is incorrect.

¶37

It is pivotal to note that the delinquent remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority. He was issued with a call letter and articles of charge, but he did not report to duty or reply to the articles of charge; despite the issue of notice and paper publication, he

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶39

did not appear before the inquiry proceedings, he remained exparte ; he was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer, but he did not reply to the same. However, a vague contention was raised before the Labor Court that he was unwell without furnishing the necessary documents.

¶40

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 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.

¶41

The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly concludes that the respondent has failed to show the discriminatory treatment by the Management.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶43

However, erroneously pardons the misconduct. In my view the Labor Court could not have viewed the misconduct so lightly. Moreover, a perusal of the award reflects that much is discussed on the domestic inquiry than on the issue of absenteeism.

¶44

Furthermore, the order of punishment was passed on 17.01.2015. The respondent raised the dispute in the year 2018. There is an inordinate delay of three years in raising the dispute. The conduct of the respondent depicts that he is not interested in discharging his professional duties diligently. In my view, the Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism so lightly. I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labor Court is liable to be set aside and so, it is set aside.

¶45

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Labor Court, Kolar in I.D.No.10/2018 vide Annexure-F is quashed. The order of removal dated 17.01.2015 is confirmed.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:50434 WP No. 12334 of 2024

¶48

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶49

Because of confirmation of the order of removal, the

¶50

interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶52

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Govindappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Siddappa Vs M Maralusiddappa

M/S KSF-9 Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

S K Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Manager (Ele)

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs a H Keshavamurthy

Dr Divya Kumari C T Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

C O Krishna Vs State of Karnataka