Sri N.K. Kazi vs Divisional Controller, KSRTC

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 26.02.2011 passed in Ref. No.36/2007.

The petitioner was initially appointed as Helper-B in the Regional Workshop, Hubli during the year 1981. He was thereafter transferred to Kolar division. During the said period, the petitioner had initially remained unauthorisedly absent from the period 01.08.1998 to 09.12.1998. Accordingly the charge sheet had been issued and a domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner. On the charge being established, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 24.03.2001. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the appellate authority was also dismissed by order dated 31.10.2003. The petitioner thereafter raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court in Ref. No.36/2007. The Labour Court by the award dated 26.02.2011 has arrived at the conclusion that the action taken against the petitioner is justified and the reference was rejected. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court was not justified in its conclusion with regard to the length of the absence period as has been noted therein since the charge is only for the absence from the period 01.08.1998 to 09.12.1998 and the absence for the subsequent period ought not to have been taken into consideration. It is also contended that the Labour Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the relief as prayed cannot be granted since there was six years delay in raising the dispute. It is further contended that when there was justification for the petitioner to remain absent for the initial period, the same ought to have been taken into consideration and an appropriate decision should have been taken by the Labour Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court. It is pointed out that apart from the fact that the Labour Court had taken note of the unauthorized absence for the initial period, had also taken into consideration, the material available on record to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner had not attended duty nor appeared for the enquiry proceedings subsequent to 11.01.1999 till the action was taken against the petitioner. In that light, it is contended that the evidence available on record was taken into consideration and the conclusion was reached.

In the light of the rival contentions, at the outset, it is necessary to notice that the evidence as tendered by the parties viz., the workman as WW. 1 and the documents at Exhs.W1 to 4 and the evidence tendered by the management as MW.1 and the documents at Exhs.M1 to M55 had been referred to in detail by the Labour Court. Therefore, it is clear that the Labour Court has referred to the evidence available on record, analysed the same and thereafter arrived at its conclusion. In the said process, the Labour Court in addition to taking note of the fact that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent for the period from 01.08.1998 to 09.12.1998 which was the period indicated in the charge sheet, has also referred to the evidence that was available on record to come to the conclusion that as at the stage when the enquiry was being held, it had been adjourned to 03.12.1999 when the petitioner herein failed to appear. Thereafter despite all efforts made to serve the copy of proceedings of the enquiry on the petitioner, the Security Officer was able to serve the same to the petitioner only on 25.01.2000 which indicates that the petitioner had remained absent during the said period.

Therefore, taking into consideration the said evidence and also taking note of the manner in which the petitioner had not reported for work and also not taken part in the proceeding due to his unauthorized absence had arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent not only during the periods from 01.08.1998 to 09.12.1998 but also from 11.01.1999 to 29.02.2001. As against the same, the petitioner in any event has not produced any material to indicate that the initial absence itself was after securing leave nor that he had attended to duty subsequently.

If that be the position, when it is established that the initial period of absence itself was unauthorized and the petitioner had also remained unauthorisedly absent subsequently for a period of nearly 2 years 3 months, certainly the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy to come to the conclusion that an opportunity requires to be provided. Therefore, if all these aspects are taken into consideration, the Labour Court in my opinion was justified in its conclusion which was entirely based on the records which was available before it in the form of evidence. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court.

The petition therefore being devoid of merit stands disposed of.