ORDER : 1. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Kantharaj V, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The short facts are as follows: The respondent was a driver in the establishment of the corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly for the duty from 18.09.2013 onwards without prior permission or grant of leave. Hence, the Traffic Inspector informed the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager submitted the same to the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a call notice. Consequently, Articles of Charge were issued. The respondent did not submit his explanation. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer issued notice, and the respondent presented himself for preliminary inquiry. Since the respondent denied the charges, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to record the evidence of the parties. Despite the service of notice, the respondent remained absent, and ultimately, the Inquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the management. Thereafter, inquiry notices were issued notifying the date of hearing as 15.06.2016, which notice in fact was duly served on the respondent, and even thereafter, he remained absent. However, even after extending an opportunity to appear before the Inquiry Officer, the respondent did not appear, which resulted in the submission of the inquiry report on 16.11.2016 by the Inquiry Officer, thereby confiscating the right of defence holding that the respondent remained absent from 18.09.2013. In the meantime, the respondent sought permission to join the duty from 21.01.2015 onwards. Based on the Report, the second showcase notice was issued calling upon the respondent to submit his reply as to why action cannot be taken under the regulations. The respondent submitted a reply. The explanation was not satisfactory, and based on the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority decided to punish the respondent by passing a dismissal order for remaining absent for one year and three months and to treat the absent period as not on duty. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court in ID No.13/2017. The Labor Court held that the inquiry conducted by the corporation was not fair and proper. Parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 14.02.2020 allowed the claim statement. Under these circumstances, the corporation has filed the present writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 4. The Labor Court held that the inquiry conducted by the corporation was not fair and proper. Parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 14.02.2020 allowed the claim statement. Under these circumstances, the corporation has filed the present writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. 5. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. D. Purostham in W.A. No. 3497/2009 dated 16.08.2010. 2. North-Eastern Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ashappa , (2006) 5 SCC 137 . 6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to unauthorized absence. The respondent remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 18.09.2013 onwards. 8. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is a misconduct in industrial employment, warranting disciplinary punishment. No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right, and remaining absent without leave will constitute a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justified disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct of absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. 9. The respondent contended that he was unable to perform his duties as a result of injuries sustained when he fell into a trench while on duty. To be precise, he contended that he sustained injuries after falling into a trench on duty, making him unable to work. He stated that despite submitting a leave application, the Depot Manager falsely submitted an absence report. The respondent asserted that the injuries he sustained from falling into a trench while on duty rendered him incapable of discharging his responsibilities. 10. An employee/worker who claims illness as a reason for absence or leave generally needs to provide sufficient proof of their condition, as the burden of proof often lies with the employee in such situations. Merely stating an illness without evidence, such as medical certificates or records, can be insufficient, especially if an employer has a formal attendance policy. 11. 10. An employee/worker who claims illness as a reason for absence or leave generally needs to provide sufficient proof of their condition, as the burden of proof often lies with the employee in such situations. Merely stating an illness without evidence, such as medical certificates or records, can be insufficient, especially if an employer has a formal attendance policy. 11. Despite the finding that the respondent had not established the specific nature of the illness. The Labor Court erroneously excused the misconduct. In my view, the Labor Court erred in condoning the misconduct, notwithstanding its own conclusion that the respondent failed to substantiate the specific nature of the disease-causing ill health. Further, the Labor Court committed a manifest error by holding that the absence was not wilful, notwithstanding its finding that the medical evidence provided lacked corroboration. 12. The Labour Court placed reliance on Exs.W28 to W33 to conclude that the order of punishment is discriminatory in nature. This is erroneous. The Labour Court has failed to notice that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to case. It is perhaps well to note that each case depends on the severity of the misconduct, coupled with the worker's history. The law is well settled that a uniform yardstick cannot be applied to all cases of misconduct. 13. The Labour Court erred in holding the domestic inquiry to be unfair and improper, as the respondent was afforded a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to submit his explanation in response to the show-cause notice/call letter. The findings/ report of the inquiry officer is furnished as Annexure-C1, and a perusal of the Inquiry Officer's report indicates that the principles of natural justice have been consistently observed; therefore, it cannot be argued that the domestic inquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. 14. Lastly, counsel Sri. Hareesh Bhandary submits that the award was stayed subject to reinstatement. However, the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 12.01.2023 onwards until the order of dismissal on 30.07.2025. Counsel submits that he has filed a memo furnishing the order of dismissal, and the same may be placed on record, and an appropriate order may be passed. 15. Submission is noted. Memo furnishing the order of dismissal is placed on record. However, the respondent remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 12.01.2023 onwards until the order of dismissal on 30.07.2025. Counsel submits that he has filed a memo furnishing the order of dismissal, and the same may be placed on record, and an appropriate order may be passed. 15. Submission is noted. Memo furnishing the order of dismissal is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the respondent was dismissed from service on 30.07.2025. The past and present conduct of the respondent would reveal that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently. Such an employee does not require any sympathy, much less a misplaced sympathy. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 16. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Labor Court Bangalore in ID No. 13/2017 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The order on the preliminary issue vide Annexure-B is also quashed. The order of punishment dated 22.02.2017 is confirmed. 17. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on several decisions, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the decisions referred to supra. Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications and interim directions, if any, are disposed of.