Voluntary retirement application does not guarantee approval: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The submission of an application for voluntary retirement does not, as of right, entitle to be granted a voluntary retirement from service, the Karnataka High Court observed in a judgement.

A division bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and Vijayakumar A Patil said made the statement while dismissing an appeal filed by a dismissed driver of the state-owned Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).

The driver, L Srinivas, a resident of Chitradurga, had joined KSRTC in 1997 and had a history of unauthorised absence from duty.

In 2010, he was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence which was set aside by the Labour Court in 2011.

After he remained absent unauthorisedly from January 18, 2013, a disciplinary inquiry was conducted. On July 10, 2015, he was removed from service after the charges were proved.

This time, on his appeal, the Labour Court held that though the enquiry was fair and proper, it set aside the dismissal, directing the KSRTC to consider his application for voluntary retirement. The application for voluntary retirement was allegedly submitted during the enquiry proceedings.

A single bench, on KSRTC’s petition challenging the order of the Labour Court, noted that despite being given a second chance, the driver remained absent from January 18, 2013, to October 7, 2013.

The single bench held that once the Labour Court found the enquiry to be fair and proper and there was no evidence to justify the absence, it could not have set aside the dismissal order.

Challenging this order, Srinivas contended that he was suffering from "R Lower Limb Buerger Disease and Low Back Ache", for which doctors advised continuous treatment, bed rest and light work.

The division bench noted that the single bench specifically considered the contentions and held that the driver continued unauthorised absence despite giving repeated warnings and punishments. The bench also said that the driver had not substantiated his case that he had made proper leave applications with Medical Certificates before the appropriate authorities.

“If his absence was on account of medical reasons, there was no reason why he did not submit proper applications with medical certificates before the employer. Moreover, apart from blandly stating that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 47 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, nothing was placed on record to prove that any request was made at the relevant time for assignment of light duties on account of any physical incapacity,” the division bench said.

The court further said, “In a case where the employee has a continuous history of unauthorised absence which is specifically taken note of by the Labour Court, the Labour Court ought not to have ordered the reinstatement or the consideration of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme application.”