RAM MOHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, while working as a conductor in the respondent-Corporation, remained absent from 17-4-1997 without prior permission or sanction of leave. The Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka State road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) regulations, 1971 (for short, the 'regulations'), by issuing an Articles of charge dated 24/6-7-1998. Annexure-A, to which the workman is said to have submitted an explanation dated 13-8-1998. Annexure-B. The disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered and being of the opinion that there were grounds to enquire into the truth of the charges appointed an Enquiry Officer who after holding an enquiry, recorded a finding that the charges were proved. The disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the said findings and on an independent assessment of the material on record, held the workman guilty of the charges and considering the gravity of the misconduct, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, by Order dated 30-8-1999. The workman questioned the said order in a petition under section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'act') which was registered as IID No. 191 of 1999 on the file of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Mysore. ( 2 ) THE petition was opposed by the respondent by filing its counter-statement denying the allegations set out in the petition. The labour Court framed a preliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic enquiry, on which the parties lead in evidence and marked the documents. The Labour Court considering the material on record and appreciating the evidence of the parties, by order dated 23-9-2003, annexure-J, held the said issue in favour of the Management, in other words, the domestic enquiry was held fair and proper. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the workman did not choose to lead evidence on allegations of victimisation. The Labour Court, by award dated 21-1- 2004, Annexure-K, dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the order, Annexure-J and the award, Annexure-K, the petitioner-workman has preferred this writ petition. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri T. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order and award impugned, as also the annexures appended to the writ petition. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to notice admitted facts. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri T. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order and award impugned, as also the annexures appended to the writ petition. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to notice admitted facts. The workman remained absent without prior permission or sanction of leave from 17 4-1997 is not in dispute. The petitioner admittedly did not file leave application enclosing the medical certificates or relevant material justifying his absence from service. In this factual background, it is relevant to notice the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of delhi Transport Corporation v Sardar Singh , which reads thus: "the conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence more particularly, when same is unauthorised, burden is on the employee who claims that there was no negligence and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant material". The material on record does not disclose any effort on the part of the workman to establish that he was neither negligent nor there was lack of interest in justifying his remaining unauthorisedly absent by placing relevant material to substantiate the absence. There is not a titer of evidence to substantiate the claim of the workman that the absence was on account of ill-health. ( 6 ) SRI Narayana Swamy would contend that the findings of the labour Court on the preliminary issue is besieged by perversity. Elaborating on the said contention, he would submit that the proceedings in the domestic enquiry did not comply with Regulation 23 of the Regulations. According to the learned Counsel sub-regulation (18) of Regulation 23 mandates the Enquiry Officer to pose questions to the workman in the event the workman does not examine himself in the enquiry. In addition, learned Counsel would submit that the Enquiry officer failed to explain the procedure of the enquiiy nor read over the charges to the workman. Further, it is contended that the documents i. e. , the report of the Officer concerned was not made available to the workman. In addition, learned Counsel would submit that the Enquiry officer failed to explain the procedure of the enquiiy nor read over the charges to the workman. Further, it is contended that the documents i. e. , the report of the Officer concerned was not made available to the workman. Sri Narayana Swamy would add three more contentions, that the Enquiry Officer did not record the proceedings properly; that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to tender his evidence; and lastly that the petitioner was not permitted to examine his witness nor engage a co-worker. These are the contentious advanced as regards the findings of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue of validity of the domestic enquiry. ( 7 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the contentions of the learned counsel, it would be fruitful to refer to the allegations set out in the claim statement, Annexure-F, by the workman. In paragraph 4 of the claim statement, the workman contends that the scooter purchased by the petitioner met with an accident and the rider succumbed to injuries, which necessitated the workman to run between the offices of RTO and the Police several times and spend considerable amounts of money. The accidental death of his relative caused mental agony and that in the said circumstances the workman could not attend to work from 17-4-1997. It is further stated that the workman submitted a leave application to the management informing the facts and requested leave of absence, which application not having been rejected was under the bona fide impression that the leave was granted. The workman states that due to serious chest pain coupled with diabetic condition, which fettered his movements, he could not report to duty though permitted on 3-6-1997. The workman claims to have taken treatment at K. R. Hospital and that the Medical Officer is said to have advised rest. In addition, it is stated that the workman handed over his leave application to one of his relative to submit the same to the depot and that, that relative did not submit the leave application in time. Workman asserts in the claim petition that he submitted leave applications and sought renewal of leave from time to time. In addition, it is stated that the workman handed over his leave application to one of his relative to submit the same to the depot and that, that relative did not submit the leave application in time. Workman asserts in the claim petition that he submitted leave applications and sought renewal of leave from time to time. In paragraph 5 of the claim petition, the workman asserts that he received the Articles of charge dated 24-7-1998 alleging unauthorised absence from 17-4-1997 and in his reply dated 13-8-1998 Annexure-B requested for permission to report to duty, and that he submitted documents to evidence having taken treatment for ailments. ( 8 ) IN para 6 of the claim statement, the workman has questioned the proceedings of the domestic enquiry as being unfair and failure to extend a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and that the charges being too vague, the workman was not in a position to cross-examine the witness. ( 9 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was non-compliance of sub-regulation (18) of Regulation 23 is not urged either in the claim statement or at the time of arguments on the preliminary issue. Though sub-regulation (18) states that the inquiring authority, in the event the Corporation servant has not examined himself, generally question the workman on the circumstances appearing against him, in the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping in mind that the charge against the workman was one of unauthorised absence without prior permission or sanction of leave, admitted by the workman, there was no necessity to comply with sub-regulation (18) of Regulation 23. As noticed supra, the charge of unauthorised absence was required to be rebutted by the workman by placing cogent material and it was for the workman to discharge the burden. In my considered opinion, non-compliance of sub-regulation (18) of Regulation 23 cannot in the facts and circumstances of this case, be pressed into service. No prejudice is caused to the workman by the enquiry Officer not questioning the workman on the circumstances appearing against him. ( 10 ) THE next contention of Sri Narayana Swamy is that the charges were not read over to the petitioner nor the procedure of the enquiry explained by the Enquiry Officer. No prejudice is caused to the workman by the enquiry Officer not questioning the workman on the circumstances appearing against him. ( 10 ) THE next contention of Sri Narayana Swamy is that the charges were not read over to the petitioner nor the procedure of the enquiry explained by the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court while considering the material on record, observed that though the workman had received and acknowledged the notice of enquiry to be held on 8-9-1998, Ex. M. 2 and the notice to appear on 9-10-1998, the workman remained absent and was placed ex parte, on which date the evidence of the Depot manager was recorded. Despite having remained absent, the Enquiry officer adjourned the proceedings to 30-10-1998 to enable the workman to cross-examine the witness. On 26-11-1998, the workman and the management witnesses were present in the enquiry, but on the said date, the workman declined to cross-examine the witness. The Enquiry officer directed the workman to submit the list of witnesses. It is a matter of record that on 7-12-1998, the workman did not file his written brief nor submit a list of witnesses. In these circumstances, to contend that the Enquiry Officer did not explain the procedure of the enquiry nor read over the charges to the workman, in my opinion, is without any merit. As submitted supra, the charge is one of unauthorised absence which the workman admits, as set out in para 5 of the claim statement. It is not as if the workman did not know that he remained absent without permission from 17-4-1997 onwards. Therefore, the question of reading the charges against the workman would not arise. The KSRTC servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations provides for the procedure of the enquiry. The petitioner being an employee of the karnataka State Road Transport Corporation cannot claim ignorance of the conduct and disciplinary regulation. In any event, it is not his case that he was not aware of the said conduct regulations. Except for contending that the procedure was not explained, nothing is forthcoming as to whether the workman was not aware cf the Regulations. In the peculiar facts of this case to contend that the Enquiry Officer had not explained the procedure, would not be fatal to the enquiry, nor could be said to be a serious lapse to render the enquiry defective. In the peculiar facts of this case to contend that the Enquiry Officer had not explained the procedure, would not be fatal to the enquiry, nor could be said to be a serious lapse to render the enquiry defective. The proceedings of the enquiry on the charge of unauthorised absence was with a purpose so as to enquire into the truth of the charges by extending an opportunity to the workman to place material before the enquiry Officer to substantiate his contention that the absence was justified. The burden of justification for unauthorised absence fell squarely on the workman. ( 11 ) THE report of the Depot Manager addressed to the Disciplinary authority states that the workman remained absent from duty without prior permission or sanction of leave with effect from 17-4-1997, which fact is admitted by the workman. The non-furnishing of this report cannot be a circumstance which could cause prejudice to the workman. As noticed supra, there is no dispute with regard to the unauthorised absence. The contention, therefore, deserves to be rejected. ( 12 ) THE additional contention urged by Sri Narayana Swamy that the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, is violative of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was extended to the workman to tender his evidence as also of his witness nor permission to engage a co-worker, are contentions which were not advanced either in the claim statement or before the Labour Court at the time of hearing. The workman tendered his evidence as W. W. 1 before the Labour Court, Mysore, copy of which is marked as Annexure-H1. The workman in his deposition does not speak of any of the alleged factual infirmities said to have been committed by the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings of domestic enquiry. List of witnesses or names and addresses of the so-called witnesses of the workman is not placed even before the Labour Court. The evidence as regard engaging a co-worker is that since notice of an enquiry was given a day before the enquiry, he was not able to take the assistance of a co-worker. The contention that the Enquiry Officer did not permit the workman to engage a co-worker is without any merit. The evidence of the workman that he received the enquiry notice on the date of hearing while he was going to the Depot, is without any corroboration or material. The contention that the Enquiry Officer did not permit the workman to engage a co-worker is without any merit. The evidence of the workman that he received the enquiry notice on the date of hearing while he was going to the Depot, is without any corroboration or material. The deposition of the workman that he was not given an opportunity to examine the witness of the Management is nothing but a self-serving statement and is contrary to the proceedings recorded in the domestic enquiry. ( 13 ) THE workman in his claim statement has categorically stated that though he was permitted to report to duty on 3-6-1997, he was unable to report to duty thereafter, due to his illness. The contention that the workman was not permitted to report to duty is without any merit. The labour Court, having sieved the evidence and the material on record, recorded a factual finding that the workman though extended reasonable opportunity in the domestic enquiry did avail of the opportunities. No exception can be taken to the findings of the Labour court on issue No. 1. The Order, Annexure-J does not call for interference. ( 14 ) IT is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the non-consideration of the reply dated 13-8-1998, Annexure-B the findings of the Labour Court on the merits of the case suffers from perversity of approach. Elaborating on the said contention, Sri narayana Swamy would point out to the statement of the workman as found in the records of the proceedings of the enquiry that the documents pertaining to medical treatment were furnished to the disciplinary Authority. In the first place, Annexure-B, the explanation to the articles of charge does not state that it has any enclosures. The only relevant statement made therein read thus: a53c> Kt> ;srte3bandooc3 Sssqirafsjeascft-W Sstorfofobj ^sand stood a^dess". In other words, the workman refers to relevant facts and not documents in support of having remained absent on account of illness. As noticed supra, in para 4 of the claim statement, the workman claims to have remained absent on account of certain personal problems that he encountered due to the accidental death of his relative while riding the scooter belonging to the petitioner and in addition, it is stated that the workman had taken treatment at K. R. Hospital for his ailment and diabetic condition. The workman has not placed any legal evidence to substantiate the facts that his scooter met with an accident and his relative died as a result of such an accident. No material is placed by the workman for having taken treatment at K. R. Hospital and that the medical Officer had advised him rest. There is also no material to substantiate the assertions that the workman did submit leave applications from time to time. In fact in the claim statement at paragraph 4 the workman admits that his relative entrusted with the work of handing over the leave application to the depot manager did not do so. There is no material forthcoming as to when the workman did in fact take treatment or as to when he became healthy enough to report to duty assuming that the workman had in fact fallen sick. The records of the proceedings, do not disclose any acknowledgement of the Divisional controller or any other authority for having received alleged documents regarding treatment taken by the petitioner for his ailments. The statements are self-serving and not supported nor corroborated by substantial legal evidence. The contentions of the learned Counsel are without merit and are, accordingly rejected. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Company referred to supra, to the facts and circumstances of this case the conclusion of negligence and lack of interest is not dispelled by the workman. The workman having failed to place any material that he was not negligent or had no lack of interest, no exception can be taken to the finding of the Labour Court. ( 15 ) THE Labour Court had overwhelming materials which constituted ample and sufficient basis for recording its findings, the manner of consideration, the objectivity of approach adopted and reasonableness of the findings recorded, are unexceptionable. The domestic Tribunal based on evidence having recorded its conclusions, is not open to judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is without merit and is rejected. --- *** --- .