(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs.)

Oral Order:

1. Sri.R.B.Aneppanavar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sathish Chandra for Sri.Satish Chandra, counsel for the respondent, has appeared in person.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

The respondent was a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 11.01.2008 without prior permission. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. The disciplinary authority issued articles of charge to the respondent. The respondent did not give a proper reply. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry. The respondent submitted his written defence statement stating that he has no documents or witnesses and requested to close the inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his findings, holding that the charges are proved. A show-cause notice was issued; however, the respondent did not submit his reply. The punishment order was passed on 31.01.2018 and dismissed him from service. The respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority, and the appeal came to be dismissed.

3. The respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court Bangalore in I.D.No.05/2018. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The Labor Court vide award dated 31.08.2019 set aside the order of dismissal. The award passed by the Labour Court is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

5. The point that requires consideration is, whether the award passed by the Labor Court requires interference?

6. The facts are sufficiently stated and 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., dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 11.01.2008. 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 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 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 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.

8. The Labour 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 Labour Court should not have permitted the introduction of evidence not presented during the initial inquiry, especially when the workman had previously stated that no documents or witnesses were available. Since the workman's absence was unauthorized, the Labour Court couldn't leniently view it as non-willful. The Labour 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 observe that each case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the worker.

9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Labor Court in I.D.No.05/2018 vide Annexure-H is quashed. The order of dismissal is confirmed.

10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of confirmation of order of dismissal, the interim order granted, if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of.