Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs P Lakshminarayana

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47624 WP No. 22818 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 22818 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EAST DIVISION, DOMLUR TTMC BUS STAND, BENGALURU - 560071, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

P.LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. PAKARAHALLI, HUDUKULA POST, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563103.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:47624 WP No. 22818 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 16.12.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to the respondent is served. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶24

The brief facts are these:

¶25

The respondent was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation and he was placed on probation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 18.01.2015 onwards without prior permission. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. He was issued with call letter calling upon him to repot to duty. He did not respond to the same. He was issued with articles of charge. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The respondent did not attend the inquiry. Hence, he was notified of date of inquiry by way of paper publication in Prajavani and Vartha Bharathi daily on

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47624 WP No. 22818 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

20.08.2015. He did not attend the inquiry. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record, passed an order of punishment on 30.03.2016 and dismissed him from service.

¶29

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.63/2017. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 31.12.2018 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits for the purpose of terminal benefits. The award passed by the Labor Court is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47624 WP No. 22818 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶33

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

¶34

Counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the call letters sent to the respondent and the same may be placed on record.

¶35

Submission is noted. Memo along the call letters sent to the respondent is placed on record and perused the same with care.

¶36

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

¶37

The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a 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 18.01.2015 onwards.

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:47624 WP No. 22818 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds.

¶42

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 leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining absent without leave will constitute 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 of 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.

¶43

The workman contended that he was unwell and he was suffering from Hepatitis/ADD for 103 days from 18.01.2015 to 30.04.2015 and hence, he could not attend the duty. The

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47624 WP No. 22818 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

workman furnished certain medical documents for the first time before the Labour Court and the same were marked as Ex.W4. The Labour Court by placing reliance on these documents concluded that the respondent was unwell and hence, the absence cannot be treated as willful and intentional one and he was ready to report to duty. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. The Labor Court failed to notice that none of the medical documents were furnished by the workman before the inquiry proceedings. Moreover, the medical certificates are not accompanied with clinical prescriptions. It is not in dispute that the respondent was notified of the inquiry proceedings by issuing notices, despite service of notices, he did not appear. Nothing prevented the delinquent to appear before the inquiry officer and furnish the medical documents. The Labour Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter. Furthermore, the finding of the Labor Court that the leave register of the depot was not produced by the Corporation is also untenable. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly.

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:47624 WP No. 22818 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Lastly, counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that this Court vide order dated:16.12.2021, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. Counsel further submits that a memo has been filed stating that, the Corporation has issued call letters to the respondent to report for duty. However, he did not report for duty as of today. Counsel, therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record.

¶51

Memo is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the Corporation has issued call letters to the respondent to report to duty. However, he did not report to duty as of today. The conduct of the respondent would reveal that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently. Such an employee does not require any sympathy much less a misplaced sympathy. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶52

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.63/2017 vide Annexure-F is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 30.03.2016 is confirmed.

¶53