JUDGMENT : S.D. Pandit, J. Dilip K. Mori had preferred the present petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the award of the Labour Court passed in REf.(LCR) No. 374/81 ion 4.2.84. 2. The petitioner was working as a clerk with the respondent company. The petitioner had remained absent without getting any leave sanctioned and therefore, an inquiry was held against him and on finding that he had committed a misconduct, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 20.11.80. Thereafter, present petitioner had approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour referred the dispute between the petitioner and respondent by letter dated 29.4.81 as under: "Shri D.K. Mori should be reinstated to his original post with full back wages." On the same reference, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot held necessary inquiry. Though initially the petitioner had challenged the validity of the departmental inquiry he passed a purshis stating that he was given inspection of all the documents and that there were no illegality in conducting of the said departmental inquiry. The main grievance of the petitioner was that the order of punishment by which he was dismissed was harsh one. The Labour Court found that the order of dismissal was harsh one. It also found that the petitioner had committed the misconduct of remaining absent without leave and the petitioner admitted that fact before the Inquiry Officer. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court also found that the petitioner was in the habit of committing said misconduct and previously he was punished for the same misconduct. Therefore, in the circumstances though he ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner, he refused to give him back wages and also did not give continuity in service by passing the following order: "The order of discharge of workman D.K. Mori passed by M/s K.S. Diesels Ltd., Rajkot is set aside and M/s K.S. Diesels Ltd. Rajkot is ordered to reinstate the workman D.K. Mori to his original post without continuity of service and without back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award. D.K. Mori be reinstated on the initial pay in the pay scale of his post. In the case of default, D.K. Mori will be entitled to back wages at the rate of his initial pay from the date of default till reinstatement. D.K. Mori be reinstated on the initial pay in the pay scale of his post. In the case of default, D.K. Mori will be entitled to back wages at the rate of his initial pay from the date of default till reinstatement. M/s K.S. Diesels Ltd., Rajkot is ordered to pay cost of Rs. 100/- to the workman." 3. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come before this court. The petition had come up for hearing on last occasion and at that time learned advocate for the petitioner had sought time stating that the petitioner has taken away the brief from him and that he had no instruction. Therefore, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner. Though the petitioner is duly served, the petitioner has not turned up. The matter was called out today in the morning but neither the petitioner nor his advocate has turned up. The matter was also called out after recess, but neither the petitioner nor his advocate is present. As the petition is more than 11 years old I proceed to dispose of the same finally on merits. Present petition is filed by the petitioner only on the question of punishment. It must be remembered that the petitioner in this case is not a civil servant and services are not governed by articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is working in a private industrial firm and his services are governed by the provisions of ID Act. The petitioner was charged with misconduct of remaining absent without leave. The misconduct with which he was charged was not at all disputed before the Labour Court. The Labour Court had found that the original order which was passed after holding a valid departmental inquiry viz. dismissal from service was a harsh one and that it was a fit case for interfering with the order of punishment by exercising the discretionary powers under section 11A of ID Act. But at the same time it has been mentioned by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court that this was not the first occasion of the petitioner committing such misconduct but he had previously committed said misconduct and he was warned and punished. But in spite of the same, he has committed the same misconduct and therefore, he has passed the order of punishment of discontinuation of service and non payment of back wages. But in spite of the same, he has committed the same misconduct and therefore, he has passed the order of punishment of discontinuation of service and non payment of back wages. It is settled law that the court is not sitting in such proceedings as a court of appeal and court cannot go into the question of punishment The court can interfere with the punishment if it is grossly inadequate and if it is unproportionate one. In the instant case, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has already used his discretion and I am unable to hold that the discretion used by the Presiding Officer is manifestly erroneous so as to interfere with the discretionary powers under article 227 of the Constitution of India. I therefore, hold that the present petition will have to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their respective costs. Rule discharged.