JUDGMENT : In this intra Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Bench of this Court in W.P.No.65534/2009 by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court has been quashed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant was joined as a trainee conductor on 09.12.2000. However without any intimation, he remained absent from 14.06.2003. The Depot Manager by the reports dated 18.07.2003, 01.10.2003, 15.02.2004 and 12.06.2004 reported unauthorized continuous absence of the appellant. The appellant for the first time on 18.07.2003 submitted a letter seeking to report the duty. He was permitted to join the duty. However, the appellant did not report for the duty and again remained absent. There were efforts made to call upon the appellant. The respondent corporation has communicated to his residential address asking him to join duties, which were received unserved. Thereupon article of charges was issued to the appellant for his unauthorized absent. The appellant by reply dated 09.09.2004 stated that he was not well during the relevant period and sought to be pardoned. However, inquiry officer was appointed by the Corporation. The inquiry officer conducted an inquiry and submitted a report. In the inquiry report, all the charges leveled against the appellant were found to be proved. 3. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, the charges leveled against the respondents were proved and the Disciplinary Authority removed him from select list w.e.f. 24.12.2004. Being aggrieved, the appellant raised an industrial dispute and eventually it was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court inter-alia held that removal of the appellant from the select list was bad in law and directed to re-instate him with full back-wages. However, it was directed that he would suffer punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. In the aforesaid factual background, the impugned order was challenged by the appellant/corporation before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.09.2015 allowed the writ petition and inter alia held that the appellant herein was not a corporation servant as defined under the regulations and therefore he is not entitled to any relief. In this background, this intra court appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.09.2015 allowed the writ petition and inter alia held that the appellant herein was not a corporation servant as defined under the regulations and therefore he is not entitled to any relief. In this background, this intra court appeal has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant was straightaway appointed as conductor and was not given any training and therefore, the appellant would not be treated as probation and was a corporation servant. However, the learned counsel for appellant has submitted that he has no explanation to offer for he remaining absent from the duty. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the matter stands concluded by a view taken by Division Bench of this Court in which it has been held that the person who has been appointed on probation cannot be treated as corporation servant and therefore is not entitled to protection under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations” for short). It is also submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra and is adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court and aforesaid issue has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and have perused the records. 7. The appellant herein was appointed as a trainee conductor. Regulation 11 of the Regulations provides that a satisfactory completion of period of probation and his passing the prescribed tests if any within the period of probation, the candidate shall become eligible for confirmation. It is not the case of the appellant that he has passed the prescribed tests within the period of probation and has become eligible for confirmation. 8. On the other hand, it is argued before us that the appellant was directly appointed for substantive post of conductor without any training. Thus, it is evident that the appointment of the appellant is diverse procedure prescribed in the Regulations, which contravenes Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, in the departmental enquiry, all the charges leveled against the appellant have been found to be proved. Admittedly, even before us, the appellant was not able to offer any plausible explanation for his unauthorized absence for a period more than a year. Even otherwise, in the departmental enquiry, all the charges leveled against the appellant have been found to be proved. Admittedly, even before us, the appellant was not able to offer any plausible explanation for his unauthorized absence for a period more than a year. Despite opportunity being afforded to the appellant, he did not join the services. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100383/2014 (L-KSRTC) dated 15.10.2014 has held that a person who is appointed on probation cannot be treated to be a corporation servant. The aforesaid decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP No.11117/2015. The appellant being a trainee conductor would not be treated as a corporation servant. 9. In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Same fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.