Karnataka High Court
Sri.Rajendra vs The Divisional Manager on 1 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
WP No. 48320 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 48320 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MANI,
R/A EN-COUPE-CRC,
MARDALA, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT SHEELA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
SUBRAMANYA RUBBER DIVISION,
CHIKKAMUDNUR, PUTTUR-574203.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed
SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
by C HONNUR
SAB
Location: HIGH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
COURT OF AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
KARNATAKA
FOR RECORDS OF THE LABOUR COURT AND SET ASIDE THE
AWARD PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
MANGALORE, D.K., IN APPLICATION NO.3/2014 DATED
7.8.2018 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND FULL BACK WAGES AND ALL
OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS BY A SUITABLE WRIT OR
ORDER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
WP No. 48320 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the award rejecting
the reference. In terms of the impugned award dated
07.08.2018, the Labour Court rejected the reference on
the premise that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent
from 22.01.2011 to 13.05.2012.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
taking through the facts of the case would submit that
there is no dispute relating to the relationship of employer
and employee between the respondent and the petitioner
and the petitioner was suffering from peripheral neuritis
which prevented the petitioner from attending the duty.
The petitioner submitted leave application to the
concerned authority through an acquaintance and though
the leave application has reached the concerned officer,
application is not considered. The petitioner was in
Mangalore undergoing treatment for the peripheral neuritis
and it appears that a notice was issued to the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
asking for his explanation for unauthorised absence and
said notice is not served on the petitioner as he was not
residing in the place on account of his treatment and it
also appears that, a notice is affixed to the conspicuous
part of his residence where he was not residing and
thereafter without there being any enquiry, the order
came to be passed holding that the petitioner has
abandoned his service.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
raised the industrial dispute. Before the Labour Court, the
petitioner took a specific contention that domestic enquiry
was not held and the Labour Court was required to frame
an issue as to the fairness of the enquiry if any held and
without there being any such issue, the Labour Court
proceeded to hold trial on issue No.2 and because of this,
the petitioner could not lead proper evidence relating to
petitioner's ailment and absence which was justified on
account of ailment from 22.01.2011 to 13.05.2012.
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
4. It is further submitted that the
respondent/employer was required to hold enquiry relating
to the absence and only after considering the reasons for
absence, the appropriate order could not have been
passed.
5. In the alternative, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority has not
applied its mind while imposing the penalty of treating the
petitioner's conduct as abandoning service. The penalty
imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, is
the submission.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
would submit that the petitioner has admitted that he
remained unauthorisedly absent for one year four months
and he did not respond to the show cause notice and he
did not lead acceptable evidence relating to illness before
the Labour Court despite opportunity being given to him.
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
7. To substantiate the contention relating to
peripheral neuritis, the petitioner has produced only the
xerox copies of medical certificates which have been
rightly rejected by the Labour Court and Labour Court has
also noticed that the medical certificates produced by the
petitioner do not inspire confidence of the Labour Court to
hold that the petitioner was suffering from an ailment
which prevented the petitioner from not attending the duty
for one year, four months.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of
reply would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co.
Ltd. And Another1 and the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited., vs S. Kiran2.
9. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the bar and perused the records.
(1979) 3 SCC 371
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not
respond to the initial show cause notice addressed to the
petitioner as the petitioner claims that the said show cause
notice was not served on him. It is the claim of the
petitioner that he was not residing in the address that is
provided to the employer. It is not forthcoming that the
petitioner has informed the changed address to the
employer. This being the position, disciplinary enquiry
was not conducted since the misconduct alleged is relating
to unauthorised absence which of course is not in dispute
though the petitioner claims that the petitioner has
submitted an application seeking leave. There is nothing
on record to show that such an application was presented
to the officer and assuming that such an application was
presented to the officer, admitted factual position is the
leave was not sanctioned. Thus, the fact that the
petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for one year four
months is established, for which in the facts of the case
enquiry was not required.
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
11. In the said circumstances, disciplinary enquiry
was not conducted and the respondent employer though
not imposed the penalty of dismissal from service has
passed an order holding that the petitioner has abandoned
his service. In substance, it is a penalty of dismissal.
Thus the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour
Court.
12. The petitioner raised a contention that the
disciplinary enquiry was not held and the entire procedure
is in violation of principles of natural justice. The
respondent responded to the claim petition had filed
objection contending that the petitioner himself has
admitted that he was unauthorisedly absent but tried to
provide an explanation by stating that he was not keeping
well. Considering the nature of the contentions raised by
the parties, the Labour Court framed two issues. The first
issue relating to the relationship of employer and
employee which was not in fact in dispute and said issue
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
did not arise for consideration. The second issue reads as
under:-
"If so, whether the order of removal from service
dated 26.6.2011 is unjustifiable and is entitled for
reinstatement to his original position with continuity
of service and other statutory benefit as claimed in
the application?"
13. After this issue was framed, the parties were
given an opportunity to lead evidence. From the tenor of
evidence that is recorded before the Labour Court, it is
evident that the petitioner was aware that there was no
disciplinary enquiry conducted against him as such, the
petitioner tried to lead evidence to justify his absence on
the premise that he was not keeping well for one year four
months.
14. The petitioner has produced xerox copies of the
medical certificates for certain period and has also
produced the xerox copy of the fitness certificate. The
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
authenticity of the certificates are doubted by the
respondent as well as the Labour Court.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that since the issue is not raised as to whether there was
an enquiry or not and if there was an enquiry, whether the
enquiry was fair or not, the petitioner could not lead
evidence to justify his absence.
16. This contention cannot be accepted. As already
noticed issue No.2 is relating to the order of dismissal
dated 20.06.2011. It is an admitted factual position that
petitioner was removed from service or at least it was
deemed that the petitioner has abandoned his service on
account of unauthorised absence.
17. The petitioner went to the trial with a clear
understanding that he was required to establish his ill
health for one year four months. The evidence on record
which is appreciated by the Labour Court does not indicate
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
that the petitioner was not keeping well for one year four
months.
18. Nothing prevented the petitioner from leading
evidence of the doctor. Though the learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that the petitioner wanted to
summon the doctor and lead evidence of the doctor, no
such application is filed before the Labour Court. This
Court cannot hold that the Labour Court prevented the
petitioner from leading the evidence of the doctor.
19. It is also noticed that one of the xerox copies of
the medical certificates produced by the petitioner do not
bear the date. The details of the treatment provided to the
petitioner are not forthcoming. Whether the petitioner
was inpatient or outpatient is also not forthcoming. The
Labour Court has also referred to Ex.A5, the letter
addressed by the petitioner to the employer wherein, he
has stated that he has remained unauthorisedly absent
though he stated in the very same letter that he was ill.
As the medical certificates produced or the evidence led
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
are not sufficient enough to hold that petitioner was
unable to attend the work for one year and four months on
account of illness. The contention relating to unauthorised
absence not established.
20. It is also relevant to notice that in the said
period of one year four months, no attempt is made by
anyone on behalf of the petitioner to bring it to the notice
of the employer that the petitioner is not keeping well and
he seeks leave to avail medical treatment.
21. This being the position, this Court is of the view
that the finding of the Labour Court which is based on
evidence on record and being a plausible view, cannot be
interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
22. This Court has also perused the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankar Chakravarti supra,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case the
departmental enquiry is not held, there has to be a
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
preliminary issue on the point. No doubt in this case,
there is no departmental enquiry. Issue No.2 is framed, in
such a way it covers the aspect of fairness of the enquiry.
The petitioner having understood the scope of the enquiry
and having understood what is required to be proved went
to the trial and tried to produce evidence in support of his
claim. The evidence is not sufficient as held by the Labour
Court. This Court is also agreeing with the said findings.
23. This being the position, no prejudice is caused
to the case of the petitioner, by the issue so framed.
24. As far as the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited., supra is concerned, the ratio in
that case does not come to the aid of the petitioner for the
simple reason that in the said case the Tribunal based on
evidence has concluded that the penalty of dismissal
imposed on the employee is disproportionate to the
misconduct alleged. In that case, the Court has come to
the conclusion that the illness alleged by the petitioner is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23398
HC-KAR
established and learned single judge of this Court declined
to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India which is confirmed by the Division
Bench of this Court.
25. Whereas in the instant case, the Labour Court
has itself held that plea relating to illness for one year four
months' unauthorised absence is not supported by any
evidence.
26. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons this Court
does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
27. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
