Sri. N. Shankar vs The Controller of Printing, KSRTC Printing Press

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ In. the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 29.01.2010 in. Ref. No. 55/2005 passed by the in Additional Labour Court at Bangalore rejecting the reference.

Petitioner was working as Assistant Binder in the Respondent''s Establishment. Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent intermittently for a period of 193 days between 29.04.1995 to 30.12.1995 is all 17 times. Despite call notices, penalty of withholding increments etc., the attendance of Petitioner was not improved. In addition to the misconduct of unauthorised absence, the Petitioner had a history of 11 previous misconduct. Therefore, Articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 10.04.1999 an order of penalty dismissing the Petitioner from service came to be passed. Aggrieved by this order of penalty, the Petitioner raked a depute in I.D. No. 128/2000, u/s 10(4)(A) of I.D. Act. Subsequently, Petitioner has withdrawn ID. No. 128/2000, as it was fifed beyond six months period. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer and the same ended in failure. The Government by order dated 24.08.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court in Ref. No. 55/2005. In addition to the points of reference, the Labour Court framed an additional issue (sic) the question of domestic enquiry. The Labour Court by order dated 21.08.2008 held that the domestic enquiry as not fair, proper and valid.

Thereafter, the Respondent examined two witnesses as MW2 and MW3 and the Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and produced certain documents. The Labour Court on appreciation of the material on record passed the impugned award rejecting the reference. Hence this writ petition.

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for 193 days between 29.04.1995 and 30.12.1995. During this short period, the Petitioner remained, absent on 17 occasions. Despite call letters, enquiries and minor penalties, the Petitioner has not improved his attendance. The explanation of the Petitioner that he met with an accident and in those circumstances he could not attend his duty regularly, is not proved and established by placing acceptable evidence on record, The Labour Court also noticed the Petitioner''s previous history of misconducts including unauthorised absence, abusing the senior officers under the influence of alcohol etc. In the circumstances, the Labour Court refused to exercise its power u/s 11A of ID Act. This finding of Labour Court is supported by evidence on record and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.