JUDGMENT : R.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioner, Mr. Shafiulla Khan, is aggrieved by the award dated 05.06.2017, passed by the Labour Court at 1 Viyouni, whereby the learned Labour Court has modified the punishment order from dismissal to termination. Briefly the facts of the case are that in 2001, the petitioner was appointed as a driver with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC for short). During the tenure of his service, the petitioner was allegedly un-authorizedly absent from 02.12.2015 till 04.03.2016. Therefore, an article of charges was furnished to the petitioner; a domestic enquiry was carried out. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the alleged charges. Therefore, he was dismissed by order dated 10.12.2016. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal order, he filed an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act' for short), in order to buttress his case, the petitioner examined himself as a witness, and submitted eighteen documents. Although the respondent-KSRTC did not examine anyone as a witness, it did submit thirty documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by the impugned award, the learned Labour Court modified the order of dismissal into an order of termination. Hence the present petition before this Court. 2. Mr. M.C. Basavaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, the learned Labour Court has been influenced by the fact that the petitioner was allegedly absent on twenty different occasions prior to Ns unauthorized absence from 02.12.2015. However, the fact that he was absent on prior occasions, was not even part of the charges framed against the petitioner. Therefore, his previous absence from his duty could not be the basis for dismissing the petitioner from his service. Secondly, the KSRTC has not led any evidence to substantiate its claim that the petitioner was absent on twenty different occasions prior to the passing of the dismissal order. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the learned Labour Court could not have taken the said fact as having been established by the KSRTC. Hence the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned award. 4. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the learned Labour Court could not have taken the said fact as having been established by the KSRTC. Hence the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned award. 4. Regulation 25 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ('the Regulations' for short), is as under: "25. Circumstances to be taken into consideration. for imposition of penalties:-Without prejudice to the provisions of any law for the time being in force any Corporation Servant who is found guilty of any act of misconduct or mis-behaviour shall be liable to one or more of the penalties specified in Regulation-18 according to the gravity of the misconduct or mis-behaviour and also on his past record." 5. In the case of K.S.R.T.C. v. A. Ramanna, (2001) 2 LLJ 1212 , it was held that the past history finds statutory recognition in Regulation 25 of the Regulations. According to the said provision, the previous history or the previous conduct of an employee can be considered even though the previous conduct does not form part of the charges framed against the delinquent employee. Therefore, the previous conduct of the petitioner can certainly be considered while passing the dismissal order by the KSRTC, Hence, even the learned Labour Court would be justified in considering the previous conduct of the petitioner, prior to the passing of the dismissal order. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel, is clearly unacceptable. 6. According to the learned Labour Court, the petitioner had clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he had remained unauthorizedly absent for twenty times, and for each unauthorized absence, he had been punished lightly by the KSRTC. Since the admission has been made by the petitioner, there was no need for the KSRTC to produce evidence to prove the said fact. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is clearly untenable. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.