Background
In this case, in its judgment dated November 10, 2023, the High Court of Karnataka (“KHC”) upheld a single judge of KHC's order, directing the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (“KPTCL”) to reinstate an employee who was dismissed because of extended absence due to mental illness.
Facts
- This case before the KHC essentially dealt with a challenge to an order dated March 21, 2019, (“Impugned Order”), passed by the principal District Judge, and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Shivamogga, (“Labour Court”). Vide the Impugned Order, the Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal dated January 01, 2014 (“Dismissal Order”) passed by KPTCL against one of its employees by the name of Mr. S. Kiran (“Kiran”).
- Mr. Kiran was an employee of KPTCL and had worked as a station attendant (grade II) since January 30, 2008. Since, 2010, Mr. Kiran started remaining absent from work without any authorisation and remained absent for a total of 632 days, resulting into the Dismissal Order passed by KPTCL. The Dismissal Order was challenged by Mr. Kiran before the Labour Court, under Section 2A (1) read with Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). Vide the Impugned Order, the Labour Court held dismissal of Mr. Kiran as illegal and ordered him to be reinstated into service. The Labour Court further held that he was not entitled to back wages and was entitled to continuation of service. This Dismissal Order was challenged by KPTCL before KHC.
Analysis
- Before the KHC, it was argued by KPTCL, that Mr. Kiran had remained absent for a total 632 days in an unauthorised manner. KPTCL also argued that several warnings were also issued to Mr. Kiran, however Mr. Kiran had wilfully ignored such warnings and had continued to remain absent. Moreover, he had also given an undertaking dated August 24, 2012, mentioning that he would not continue to remain absent, however, he had failed to act in accordance with the undertaking as well.
- Before the KHC, Mr. Kiran argued that he suffered from mental illness, i.e., depression, for which he was under medication and had remained absent from his house without informing anyone. Sufficient medical evidence was produced by Mr. Kiran before the Labour Court to establish that his absence was not wilful and was due to his mental illness.
- KHC analysed the case laws relied by both the parties and further held that he had made out a sufficient cause for his absence from service owing to his mental illness. In view of this, KHC refused to interfere with the decision passed by the Labour Court.
Originally published 03 April 2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.