Submitting leave applications does not excuse absence unless the leave is sanctioned.

The petitioner, a Junior Assistant with N.W.K.R.T.C., was charged with unauthorised absence from 27 January to 6 October 2008 and was dismissed after a departmental inquiry.

He challenged the dismissal under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal, directed reinstatement and substituted stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. By the time the writ petition was heard, the petitioner had retired.

Before the High Court, he relied on leave applications and medical records relating to back pain, while the Corporation contended that leave had not been sanctioned and that the applications covered a period extending from January to August 2008.

Whether the Labour Court’s modified punishment for the petitioner’s unauthorised absence warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner’s leave applications and medical records established a sufficient basis to treat his absence as authorised or to displace the Labour Court’s decision.

Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 provided the route by which the petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court.

Submitting a leave application does not, by itself, authorise absence; leave must be sanctioned.

It considered Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178, which the petitioner invoked for the proposition that unauthorised absence must be shown to be wilful, but held that the precedent did not assist him on these facts.

The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted multiple leave applications over several months, undermining his contention that he had been absent for only a short continuous period.

The medical records did not explain the nature or severity of the back pain, establish that he was unable to attend work, or show that leave had been sought from the employer with relevant treatment details. His outpatient treatment and the absence of evidence that leave was sanctioned therefore did not establish that the absence was authorised.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to disturb the Labour Court’s decision to substitute a lesser punishment for dismissal.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition.