A GANESH REDDY Vs. CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BMTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, a driver in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation, remained absent from duty with effect from 6-10-2009 without prior permission and sanction of leave, leading to disciplinary proceedings by issue of articles of charge dated 12-11-2001. On an Enquiry Officer being appointed, domestic enquiry held into the charges, by extending reasonable opportunity of hearing, was followed by the submission of an enquiry report holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence, held the petitioner guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence and there being no material placed by the petitioner to justify the defence of absence from service due to treatment at Seva Kshetra and Victoria Hospital, for jaundice, coupled with the fact that the past record of service of the petitioner disclosed imposition of minor punishment on 10 occasions in the past for similar such proved misconduct of unauthorized absence, accordingly by order dated 23-9-2003, dismissed the petitioner from services.

(2.) THAT order was called in question by rising a conciliation proceeding before the Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whence the State Government referred the said dispute for adjudication, by order dated 6-11-2007 to the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. Before the Labour Court, petitioner filed a claim statement to which the respondent-Road Transport Corporation filed its counter, denying the allegations. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the Labour Court framed a preliminary issue over validity of the Domestic enquiry.

(3.) PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends that there being no dispute over absence from duty, the burden was on the petitioner to prove that there was sufficient jurisdiction for the unauthorized absence. Learned Counsel refutes the contention that the certificates Exs.M.8 and M.9, W.1 and W.2 were sufficient material to support the contention of having remained absent on account of suffering from jaundice. According to the learned Counsel, the absence from service cast a burden heavily on the petitioner to establish, by placing relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence, that there was neither negligence or lack of interest in the discharge of duties. It is lastly contended that interference with the order of termination from services tantamount to misplaced sympathy.