Employee absent citing hernia; HC finds unauthorised absence was far too high

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Terming the unauthorized absence of a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) would affect public interest; the High Court of Karnataka has dismissed an appeal in which the absence was blamed on hernia. The HC found that the treatment period of hernia cited was far less than the number of days the employee was absent.

“The respondent is KSRTC and any unauthorized absence of an employee in such a public service transport agency would adversely affect not only the work of the Corporation but also the public at large,” the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal said while dismissing an appeal by one DK Malleshappa from Kadur, Chikkamagalur.

Malleshappa was dismissed from service on September 20, 2018 by KSRTC on account of unauthorized absence on several occasions. He raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court which was dismissed on October 14, 2019. He challenged it before a single-judge bench of the HC.

His contention was that he was suffering from hernia and therefore was absent from work for 357 days. The Single Judge bench had noted that most of the medical documents submitted by Malleshappa were “general laboratory reports/ clinical reports and there are only two documents which indicate that the appellant had hernia.”

He was hospitalised for ten days according to one document and “the rest of the documents are prescriptions and out-patient records.” The Court held that “The only period which could be probably excused is between 13.03.2017 and 27.03.2017 and the recovery period thereafter, and not the period of 357 days during which the appellant has remained unauthorizedly absent.”

The single judge had also held that the Labour Court had considered all the documents in proper perspective while dismissing his claim and 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.”

The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal said, “We do not find any ground to interfere with the wellconsidered order passed by the learned Single Judge.” It said the single judge had rightly considered all materials on record.

“The Single Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the said documents are only general Laboratory Reports/Clinical Reports and there are no documents produced by the appellant before the Labour Court or this Court justifying the absence of the appellant,” the Division Bench said.