D. K. MALLESHAPPA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order dtd. 3/9/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7101/2020.

(2.) There is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. I.A.No.1/2022 is filed seeking condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed.

(3.) The appellant/petitioner who was working as a Technical Assistant with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed from service on 20/9/2018 on account of unauthorised absence on several occasions. The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed on 14/10/2019. Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed a writ petition. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the relevant documents produced on record namely, Ex.W2 to Ex.W18 as also the medical ailments suffered by the appellant for his unauthorised absence from duty. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph 6 of the order dtd. 3/9/2022, has dealt with those documents in detail and observed that a perusal of Exs.W.2 to W.18 indicates that most of them are general laboratory reports/clinical reports and there are only two documents in Ex.W.10 which indicate that the appellant had hernia. The appellant had been hospitalized on 16/3/2017 and discharged on 27/3/2017. The other documents which refer to hernia is Ex.W.13 which is dtd. 13/3/2017 and the rest of the documents are prescriptions and out-patient records. The only period which could be probably excused is between 13/3/2017 and 27/3/2017 and the recovery period thereafter, and not the period of 357 days during which the appellant has remained unauthorizedly absent. The learned Single Judge further observed that the Labour Court has considered all the documents in proper perspective while dismissing the claim of the appellant and held that there was no satisfactory explanation for the unauthorizedly absence of the appellant for a period of 357 days and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.