K.N. LOKESHWAR S/O LATE K NAGENDRACHAR Vs. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BMTC CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE 560027

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a conductor in the respondent -Public Road Transport Corporation, having remained absent from 29/7/2004 for a period of 7 months and 7 days, disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuing an articles of charge followed by appointing an enquiry officer who extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and submitted a report holding the charge proved, followed by the order dt. 17/2/2006 of dismissal from service. That order when called in question in a petition under Sec. 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', registered as I.D.No.25/06 before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, respondent Corporation entered appearance and resisted the claim by filing a counter statement. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the Labour Court framed issues, one of which related to validity of the domestic enquiry. Parties entered trial by examining their witnesses and marked documents. By order dt. 22/4/2010, it is stated that, the Labour Court answered the issue relating to the fairness of the domestic enquiry in the affirmative holding the enquiry as fair and proper. That order is not challenged in this proceeding.

(2.) THE Labour Court having regard to the material on record and the evidence, both oral and documentary, more appropriately admission of the petitioner that copies of leave applications were not produced; medical certificates were not produced; the fact of having been punished on 13 occasions in the past for similar acts of misconduct of unauthorised absence, the Labour Court by award dt. 14/9/2010, rejected the petition. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) KEEPING in view the admitted facts as adverted to in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the award impugned, it would be misplaced sympathy and private benevolence to reinstate the petitioner, by interfering with the punishment of dismissal and modifying the same to a lesser punishment. Unauthorised absence from duty is indiscipline and habitual absence is gross indiscipline, deserving no lesser punishment than dismissal, as observed by the Apex Court in L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar, (2008) 1 LLJ 849 SC . In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court, in the award impugned.