Observing that an employee must not be absent from work without valid reasons during designated working hours, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a former Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) conductor’s plea challenging his dismissal for unauthorised absence from duty for nearly four months.The conductor moved to the high court against the labour court order, which found that the departmental inquiry was not fair and proper, but it ultimately rejected his claim.Upholding the labour court order, Justice Jyoti M said, “An employee must not be absent from work without valid reasons during designated working hours. Unauthorised absence is considered misconduct in industrial employment and can lead to disciplinary measures.”The court observed that the employees do not have an absolute right to leave of absence, and remaining absent without approval breaches discipline. “Such absence without leave is misconduct that warrants disciplinary action,” it stated.Conductor accused of prolonged absenceThe petitioner joined the services of the corporation as a conductor in 1992. He was accused of being absent from September 1 to December 24, 2014. He did not reply to the chargesheet and was proceeded against ex parte. Following a departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service on May 6, 2015. Justice Jyoti M said that such absence without leave is misconduct that warrants disciplinary action.He later raised an industrial dispute in 2018. Although the labour court found that the departmental inquiry was not fair and proper, it ultimately rejected his claim through an award dated December 22, 2018. The petitioner is challenging this order before the high court.Appearing for the corporation, Advocate H R Renuka submitted that no leave application was submitted.Story continues below this adHe admitted prolonged absence: OrderThe court noted that the petitioner had been absent on 17 previous occasions, showing a history of repeated absence from duty.It further noted that during cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he had been absent since September 1, 2014. “He also failed to respond to the charge to demonstrate his innocence,” it added.The court held that, considering the evidence and the petitioner’s repeated absence, the Labour Court rightly found that he did not deserve sympathy. It found the labour court’s conclusions “fair and appropriate.”Other rulingsNearly four decades after a DTC driver was removed from service for absenteeism, the Delhi High Court has upheld his dismissal. The court underlined that a “single-day” departmental enquiry doesn’t render the proceedings unfair. The DTC driver, who died during the pendency of the case, allegedly remained absent from his duty for almost seven months in 1988, leading to a departmental enquiry.Story continues below this adRejecting the challenge brought by his legal heirs after his death, Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora reiterated that unauthorised absence cannot be excused on sympathetic grounds and that claims of medical leave must be supported by evidence.“No doubt, the stand that the enquiry proceedings have been completed in a day’s time looks appealing at first blush, but such a plea needs to be seen and considered in the facts of each case. Surely, the facts which have emerged in the present case, as noted above, do show a proper opportunity was given to the employee to defend himself. He had not sought time to produce the documents/evidence/witness in his favour,” the July 3 order read.The Rajasthan High Court recently held that a government teacher cannot remain absent from duty merely in anticipation that child care leave (CCL) will be granted, reiterating that such leave is not a “matter of right” but is subject to the discretion of the employer.Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing the plea of a teacher challenging the rejection of her CCL application and the initiation of proceedings treating her absence as unauthorised.Story continues below this ad“Leave is not a matter of right and is at the discretion of the employer, and the maximum leave which can be granted is two years, subject to fulfilling certain conditions,” the April 29 order read.