ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner while a driver in the respondent-Public Road Transport Corporation remained absent from duties w.e.f. 25.1.2003 without prior permission or sanction of leave, leading to initiation of disciplinary proceeding by issuing articles of charge dt. 16.4.2003 and appointing an enquiry officer, who held a domestic enquiry into the charge, extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and submitted a report holding the charge proved. The disciplinary authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, more appropriately in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the workman remained absent due to medical treatment, which defence of the workman having not been established and keeping in mind that the absence was for a continuous period of approximately 20 months, held the misconduct tantamounted to grave indiscipline and accordingly by order dt, 22.11.2004 dismissed the petitioner from service, that order when called in question by raising an industrial dispute invoking S. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'Act', before the 1st Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, for short 'Labour-Court, whence the petitioner filed a claim statement registered as I.D. No. 4/2005, New No. 47/2006, was resisted by filing statement of objections of the respondent. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the Labour Court framed issues, one of which related to the validity of the domestic enquiry, recorded the testimony of witnesses for the parties, marked documents in evidence, and by order dt. 19.2.2009, answered the issue in the negative holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. Parties, thereafter, when permitted, entered trial and adduced evidence afresh over the charge of unauthorized absence. The Labour Court, having regard to the material on record, the evidence, both oral and documentary, declined to accept the documents produced by the petitioner as credible evidence, in the absence of the discharge summary of the hospital in which the petitioner claimed to have been an inpatient, coupled with the contradiction in the testimony of the petitioner elicited in his cross-examination, held that the petitioner did not establish his defence and that the misconduct of unauthorized absence was proved. Keeping in mind the grave indiscipline on the part of the respondent and there being no mitigating circumstances, declined to invoke its extraordinary discretion under section 11A of the Act to interfere with the punishment of dismissal and accordingly by award dt. 29.1.2011 - Annex. A, rejected the Reference. Hence this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the three prescriptions and the two medical bills, Ex. M9 to M11 and M12 to M14 respectively, coupled with the applications for sanction of leave on medical grounds, was enough and more evidence to establish the defence of the workman of absence, while under medical treatment. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court did not appreciate the material on record, resulting in recording perverse findings. In addition, learned Counsel submits that the history sheet - Ex. M21 produced by the respondent-Corporation did not disclose habitual or unauthorized absence and that it was for the first time in the 24 years of service as a driver, that he had remained absent for 20 months and therefore the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct held proved. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, there is no dispute that the petitioner remained absent from 25.1.2003 up to 22.11.2004, the date of dismissal from service. There is also no dispute that the petitioner did not produce the discharge summary to evidence the fact that petitioner was an inpatient in a hospital. So also, it is not in dispute that the medical records relating to the treatment allegedly extended to the petitioner for nearly 20 months, was not made available to the Labour Court, even when the enquiry was held on the merit of the charge. In the cross-examination of the petitioner, it is elicited that though Ex. M5, is the reply to the charge-sheet, nevertheless, there was no mention of the petitioner having suffered from urinary problem or to have been an inpatient. In view of the non-availability of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the petitioner was an inpatient and suffering from kidney problem, the three prescriptions and the two medical bills Ex. M9, M10 and MT1 and Ex. In view of the non-availability of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the petitioner was an inpatient and suffering from kidney problem, the three prescriptions and the two medical bills Ex. M9, M10 and MT1 and Ex. M12 to 14 respectively, were not in the direction of establishing the defence of the petitioner, that he was medically unfit to report to duty during the entire period from 25.1.2003 up to the date of dismissal. Having considered the material on record; it is too farfetched for the petitioner to contend that the Labour Court did not appreciate the evidence, both oral and documentary. 3. If truly the petitioner did take treatment from a hospital/clinic/private nursing home and was an inpatient, it was open for the petitioner to furnish particulars of the dates on which he was an inpatient and the dates on which he was discharged from the hospital/clinic/private nursing home. In fact the petitioner, when extended reasonable opportunity before the Labour Court failed to place all relevant material in support of his evidence, and did not choose to examine the Doctor who treated him or in the least secure medical records maintained by the hospital/clinic/private nursing home over the alleged treatment and of being an inpatient. In my considered opinion, petitioner failed to establish a special knowledge that was known to him in the matter of alleged treatment in the hospital/clinic/private nursing home. The mere production of a photostat copies of prescription slips and the medical bills, by themselves and nothing more, do not constitute substantial legal evidence. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the findings of the Labour Court, declining to accept the three medical prescriptions and two medical bills, as credible evidence. 4. It is no doubt true that the petitioner's past record, of service does not disclose previous instances of absence from service. The question is not one of how many times the workman remained unauthorisedly absent in the past for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Unauthorised absence, by itself is a grave misconduct and violation of discipline and dereliction of duties, jeopardizing the functioning of a public Road Transport Corporation, calling forth punishment of dismissal from service. 5. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Divisional Controller NWKRTC Vs. Unauthorised absence, by itself is a grave misconduct and violation of discipline and dereliction of duties, jeopardizing the functioning of a public Road Transport Corporation, calling forth punishment of dismissal from service. 5. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Divisional Controller NWKRTC Vs. Raghavendra Madhava Katti, ILR (2001) KAR 4199 followed the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bum & Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen & Ors., AIR 1959 SC 529 holding that unauthorized absence is grave misconduct and grave violation of discipline, greatly jeopardized the functioning of the establishment, more appropriately on employees of a Road Transport Corporation remaining absent, having serious repercussions on the functioning of the Corporation and hindering of service to public for which the Corporation had been brought into existence under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1951, requiring a treatment of such deriliction of duty with certain amount of seriousness. Their Lordships of the Division Bench further followed the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr., (1994) 2 LLJ 888 , deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely basing on misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. 6. In Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh, AIR 2004 SC 4161 , the Apex Court having regard to absence from duties of employees, observed that the conduct of 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 workman that there was no negligence or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant material. 7. In North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. Vs. Ashappa, AIR 2006 SC 2164 , the Apex Court having regard to the observations made by it in Delhi Transport Corpn. v. Sardar Singh's case supra and in State of U.P. Vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others, AIR 2006 SC 3548 , keeping in mind the facts of the case that the workman had remained absent for 36 months coupled with unauthorized absence on several occasions in the past held that remaining absent for long time cannot be said to be a minor misconduct, more so when the Corporation runs a fleet of buses providing public utility services. 8. 8. In the factual matrix noticed supra, the petitioner's absence from duty, though sought to be justified on the premise that he was an inpatient in a hospital, which when not established by cogent evidence, it cannot but be said that the petitioner exhibited negligence and lack of interest. Having regard to the principles laid down in the cases supra, the award impugned of the Labour Court does not call for interference. Writ petition, devoid of merit, is accordingly rejected.