HASHIMPEER ANSARASAB LOGAVI Vs. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner while in service of the respondent Public Road Transport Corporation, appointed as driver during the year 1999, remained unauthorizedly absent without prior permission or leave or sanction from duty from 14.11.2010 to 23.03.2011 following which the Depot Manager submitted a report of unauthorized absence and the disciplinary authority instituted disciplinary proceeding under the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Conduct and Disciplinary) Regulations, 1971, appointed an Enquiry Officer, held an enquiry extending reasonable opportunity of hearing and submitted a report recording a finding that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved. The disciplinary authority on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, held petitioner guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence and by order dated 28.12.2011 terminated the petitioner from service.

(2.) Petitioner instituted conciliation proceeding resulting in a reference by the State Government of the industrial dispute of termination from service, to the Labour Court, Bijapur, registered as Reference No.27/2013. Petitioner filed a claim statement asserting that he had forwarded leave applications through his wife and that there was no practice of the respondent Corporation to issue acknowledgements for receipt of leave applications and further that he had leave to his credit and that the absence was due to a fracture that he had sustained in an accident hence unable to discharge duties. The enquiry, which was held, it was alleged was not in accordance with law and the imposition of the punishment of dismissal unreasonable. Petition was opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondent Corporation, inter alia, denying the allegations but pointing out to the fact of unauthorized absence from 14.11.2010 to 23.03.2011 and the factum of having complied with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act').

(3.) In the premise of pleadings of parties, the Labour Court framed issues the first was regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry and the second over justification of the termination from service. Petitioner was examined as PW-1 and marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3, while for the respondent Corporation one witness was examined as RW-1 and marked 22 documents as Exs.R1 to R22.