Judgment : The petitioner, a driver in the respondent-Public Road Transport Corporation having remained absent from duties with effect from 25.1.1995 without prior permission or sanction of leave, was issued with an Articles of charge dated 4.1.1996 which when acknowledged was not responded by a reply. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority, being of the view that there were grounds to inquire into the material allegation, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who held a domestic enquiry and submitted a report holding the charge proved. On an independent assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 20.3.1997. 2. The petitioner initiated conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’), which, when ended in a failure report, was followed by an order dated 12.6.1998 of the State Government referring the points of dispute for adjudication before the Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court, whence it was registered as Reference No.88 of 1998. In the said proceeding, the petitioner filed a claim statement which was resisted by filing counter-statement of the respondent, arraigned as the second party. In the premise of pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed two additional issues, one of which relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry. The parties entered trial and the Labour Court, by order dated 3.1.2005 answered the issue in the negative. In other words, held the domestic enquiry not fair and proper and permitted the parties to adduce additional evidence. 3. The petitioner was examined as W.W.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.W.1 to W.7 in support of the contention that the absence for 1 year 11 months and 28 days was on the premises of suffering from illness. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record held the alleged illness as certified in Ex.W.7 was not serious enough to justify absence for a long period of 1 year 11 months 28 days. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record held the alleged illness as certified in Ex.W.7 was not serious enough to justify absence for a long period of 1 year 11 months 28 days. The conduct of the petitioner, it is observed, was indicative of negligence and lack of interest in performing duties and the past record of service disclosed absence from duties on 27 days from 11.3.1993 to 6.9.1993; 21 days from 23.11.1993 to 13.12.1993; 25 days from 23.3.1994 to 26.4.1994; 78 days from 22.3.1995 to 7.6.1995 and thereafter from 25.11.1995 onwards, and hence declined to interfere with the quantum of punishment and accordingly, by award dated 29.11.2007 Annexure-B rejected the reference. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court made reference to the invalid enquiry proceedings which ought to be eschewed for the purpose of decision making. It is next contended that Ex.W.7 Medical Certificate when read in conjunction with the prescriptions Exs.W.1 to W.3 and the cash bills-Exs.W.4 to W.6 for having purchased medicines, was substantial legal evidence of the fact that the petitioner suffered an illness by reason of which he remained absent for 1 year 11 months and 28 days. Lastly it is contended that the punishment of dismissal being disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct held proved, the past record of service relating to the absence was not a necessary consideration. 5. Per contra, Sri. R.I. D’sa learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation seeks to sustain the award of the Labour Court as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, examined the award impugned, I find that the whole edifice of the case of the petitioner to justify the long absence for 1 year 11 months and 28 days to be one without any basis or proof of illness. The factum of absence from service not being in dispute, there was no necessity for the respondent-employer to say anything more than to state that the petitioner was absent from service without prior permission or sanction of leave. In cases of absence from duties, it is not for the employer to prove the negative but it is for the petitioner-workman to justify the absence since he has the special knowledge of the reasons for absence. In cases of absence from duties, it is not for the employer to prove the negative but it is for the petitioner-workman to justify the absence since he has the special knowledge of the reasons for absence. The medical prescriptions, cash bills and the medical certificates when examined, the labour Court recorded a finding that they did not disclose a serious illness suffered by the petitioner so as to remain absent for a long length of time. Moreover, except for producing the records, the petitioner failed to adduce the evidence of the Doctor, who treated him and issued the certificate so as to corroborate his claim of illness. No exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions recorded by the Labour Court while rejecting the documents Ex.W. series, as not credible evidence. 7. Merely because the Labour Court extracted details of the domestic enquiry in the award impugned, that by itself and nothing more cannot be attributed with consideration of irrelevant material. In fact, the award discloses that the Labour Court extracted material particulars of the proceedings of the domestic enquiry only to point out the conduct of the petitioner, so as to conclude that the petitioner was negligent and animated lack of interest in the performance of his duties. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner must stand repelled. 8. The past record of service of the petitioner, as set out in paragraph 20 of the award, is also indicative of the fact that the absence from service was not for the first time and that there has been several occasions in the past from the year 1993 onwards, whence the petitioner remained absent without prior permission or sanction of leave. To say that the past record ought not to be considered but eschewed as irrelevant, in my considered opinion is without merit. I say so because the absence from duty of the petitioner engaged as a driver in the Public Transport Corporation harmed not only administration of respondent-Corporation, but put the public into inconvenience and if the petitioner in the previous past remained absent, that event is relevant material for consideration in the matter of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act. In short, the past record did not disclose extenuating circumstances to mitigate the punishment of dismissal which was commensurate with the proved Act of misconduct of unauthorized absence for 1 year 11 months and 28 days. 9. In the circumstances, the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in The Divisional Controller, North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bagalkot v Raghavendrar Madhava Katti 2000 (7) Kar.L.J. 487 (DB): ILR 2001 Kar. 4199 (DB), applies on all its fours. The Division Bench following the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Burn & Company Limited v Their Workmen and Others AIR 1959 SC 529 : 1959-I-LLJ-450 (SC), held that unauthorized absence is grave misconduct and grave violation of discipline, greatly jeopardize the functioning of the establishment, more appropriately all employees of a Road Transport Corporation remaining absent having serious repercussions on functioning of the Corporation and hindering of service to public for which the Corporations have been brought into existence under the Road Transport Corporations Act 1951, required a treatment of such dereliction of duty with certain amount of seriousness. The Division Bench also followed the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Limited v A. Unnikrishnan and Others 1994-II-LLJ-888 (SC): 1995 (2) LLN 968 (SC), deprecating the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by mere basing on misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. 10. In Delhi Transport Corporation v Sardar Singh AIR 2004 SC 4161 : (2004) 7 SCC 574 : 2004-III-LLJ-543 (SC): 2004 AIR SCW 4622 the Apex Court having regard to the absence from duties observed that the conduct of himself remaining absent without obtaining leave in advance is nothing but irresponsible in extreme and can hardly be justified. In addition, it was observed that it is the burden of the employee who claims that there was no negligence or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant material. 11. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court and as followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the opinions supra, and applying the same to the facts of this case, the award impugned of the Labour Court does not call for interference. The writ petition is without merit and is, accordingly rejected.