Judgment : 1. Petitioner, a driver in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation, remained absent from duty with effect from 6-10-2009 without prior permission and sanction of leave, leading to disciplinary proceedings by issue of articles of charge dated 12-11-2001. On an Enquiry Officer being appointed, domestic enquiry held into the charges, by extending reasonable opportunity of hearing, was followed by the submission of an enquiry report holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence, held the petitioner guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence and there being no material placed by the petitioner to justify the defence of absence from service due to treatment at Seva Kshetra and Victoria Hospital, for jaundice, coupled with the fact that the past record of service of the petitioner disclosed imposition of minor punishment on 10 occasions in the past for similar such proved misconduct of unauthorized absence, accordingly by order dated 23-9-2003, dismissed the petitioner from services. 2. That order was called in question by rising a conciliation proceeding before the Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whence the State Government referred the said dispute for adjudication, by order dated 6-11-2007 to the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. Before the Labour Court, petitioner filed a claim statement to which the respondent-Road Transport Corporation filed its counter, denying the allegations. In the premise of pleadings of parties, the Labour Court framed a preliminary issue over validity of the Domestic enquiry. 3. Parties, when directed to enter trial, the respondent-Corporation examined the Enquiry Officer as M.W.1 and marked 12 documents as Exs.M.1 to M.12, while the petitioner was examined as W.W.1 and produced 2 documents marked as Exs.W.1 and W.2. The Labour Court, by order dated 6-8-2009, held the enquiry to be fair and proper and accordingly answered the preliminary issue. Thereafterwards the petitioner was further examined on the allegation of victimization, whence no document was produced. The Labour Court, having regard to the material on record, evidence both oral and documentary, held the petitioner guilty of the misconduct of unauthorized absence and keeping in mind the past record of service, disclosing extenuating circumstances of absence from service leading to imposition of minor punishment, declined to interfere with the punishment of dismissal by the award dated 30-1-2010. Hence this petition by the workman. 4. Hence this petition by the workman. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out to the finding recorded by the Labour Court declining to accept the medical certificates. Exs.M.8 and M.9 and W.1 and W.2 to contend that the petitioner suffered from jaundice and the period of absence from 6-10-2001 to 28-5-2002 was absolutely necessary to restore his health. According to the learned Counsel, the certificates establish justification for absence from duty. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner has put in 17 years of service and the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct held proved and as a consequence, calls for interference. Learned Counsel hastens to add that the Labour Court fell in error in not exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to interfere with the quantum of punishment. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends that there being no dispute over absence from duty, the burden was on the petitioner to prove that there was sufficient jurisdiction for the unauthorized absence. Learned Counsel refutes the contention that the certificates Exs.M.8 and M.9, W.1 and W.2 were sufficient material to support the contention of having remained absent on account of suffering from jaundice. According to the learned Counsel, the absence from service cast a burden heavily on the petitioner to establish, by placing relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence, that there was neither negligence or lack of interest in the discharge of duties. It is lastly contended that interference with the order of termination from services tantamount to misplaced sympathy. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, there is no dispute that the petitioner remained absent from 6-10-2001 to 28-5-2002. There is also no dispute that the petitioner, in the past has absented from duties during 7 spells and was imposed with minor punishments. Though the defence of the petitioner is that he was under treatment from 7-10-2001 to 3-4-2002, Ex.M.9 certifies that he was fit to resume duty form 4-4-2002, while Ex.W.1-a copy of the medical certificate, states that he was under treatment from 26-4-2003 to 17-9-2003 and Ex.W.2 states that he was under treatment from 26-12-2002 to 25-12-2003. Thus the periods of treatment in the medical certificates are not consistent. The originals of Exs.W.1 and W.2 are not forthcoming. Thus the periods of treatment in the medical certificates are not consistent. The originals of Exs.W.1 and W.2 are not forthcoming. In fact Labour Court recording a finding that there are over writings in Exs.W.1 and W.2 creating a doubt over its veracity and hence unacceptable as substantial legal evidence. The petitioner did not choose to examine the doctor or in the alternative to secure the records from the Hospital over the medical treatment. In addition, petitioner failed to produce the prescriptions as well as medical bills for having taken treatment for jaundice at Hospital. If truly the petitioner was an inpatient in the Hospital, as contended by him, there was no impediment for the petitioner to produce copies of the said records from the Hospital. In my considered opinion, the petitioner failed to establish a special knowledge that was known to him in the matter of alleged treatment at Seva Kshetra and Victoria Hospital. Mere production of Exs.W.1 and W.2, being Photostat copies of Medical Certificate, by themselves and nothing more to do constitute substantial legal evidence. In my opinion, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Court below in declining to accept the certificates, Exs.M.8, M.9, W.1 and W.2, as having evidentiary value. 7. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of the Divisional Controller, North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Bagalkot v Raghavendra Madhava Katti (2000 (7) Kar.L.J. 487 (DB) : ILR 2001 KAr.4199 (DB)), followed the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Burn and Company Limited v. Their Workmens and Others ( AIR 1959 SC 529 : 1959-I-LLJ-450 (SC)), holding that unauthorized absence is a 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, 1950, required a treatment of such dereliction of duty with certain amount of seriousness. 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, 1950, required a treatment of such dereliction 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 Limited v. A. Unnikrishnan and Another (1994-II-LLJ-888 (SC) ; 1995 (2) LLN 968 (SC) : 1994 (1) SCALE 631 ), deprecated the judicial tendencies to grant unwarranted reliefs by merely basing on misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. 8. In Delhi Transport Corporation v Sardar Sing ( AIR 2004 SC 4161 : 2004-III-LLJ-543 (SC) : (2004) 7 SCC 574 : 2004 AIR SCW 4622), 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. 9. In the factual matrix noticed supra, the absence from duty, when not justified as being under medical treatment for jaundice, petitioner failed to establish by cogent evidence, the alleged treatment and therefore it cannot but be said that the petitioner exhibited negligence and lack of interest in the discharge of his duties. The past record of imposition of minor punishments on 7 occasions for similar acts of misconduct of remaining absent without prior permission, is not a mitigating but extenuating circumstance and the imposition of the punishment of dismissal, in the circumstances, cannot be characterized as shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct held proved, calling for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Labour Court noticed that there was a delay of 4 years and 2 months in approaching the Court by way of a reference of the Industrial Dispute for adjudication which remained unexplained and sufficient cause was not shown for the inordinate delay and therefore declined to exercise its extraordinary discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, and hence cannot be found fault with. 11. 11. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court, as observed supra, the award impugned of the Labour Court does not call for interference. Writ Petition, devoid of merit, is rejected.