Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The Central Government referred the following dispute under Sub-sec. (2-A) of Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). "Whether the management was justified in awarding punishment of dismissal from service of Shri Madhesh Sharma, Ex-Male Mazdoor B. No. 705 for absenting from duty for more than 10 consecutive days without leave for the first time? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" The Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman declaring the termination of his services as bad and the workman was accordingly, directed, to be reinstated with effect from May 6, 1987 with payment of 70% of his wages therefrom till the date of resumption of his duty. Being aggrieved the employer has filed this writ petition. 2. In spite of service of notice, counter-affidavit has not been filed by the respondents even though they are represented by their respective counsel. 3. I have heard Ms. M.M. Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Piprewal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the workman. 4. The workman was a male mazdoor in the establishment of the petitioner. He was sanctioned leave from January 24, 1978 to February 3, 1978 and was to resume his duty on February 4, 1978. But he overstayed the leave and reported to duty on February 16, 1978. For overstaying the leave for more than 10 days, he was charge-sheeted on February 17, 1978 by the employer containing the following charges: "You have been absent without leave since February 4, 1978. You are required ...... within 3 days from the date of despatch to this form as to why suitable action should not be taken against you under Sec. 9 (viii) of the Companys Certified Standing Orders (Ext. M-5)." The workman submitted his explanation dated February 18, 1978 mentioning therein that he was undergoing treatment for gastric trouble under a doctor from February 4, 1978 to February 18, 1978 and he reported to duty after he was found fit. The employer not being satisfied with the explanation, domestic inquiry was held in which the workman was given opportunity to participate and have his say. The Inquiry Officer after examining the material on record submitted a report holding the workman guilty of the charges. The employer not being satisfied with the explanation, domestic inquiry was held in which the workman was given opportunity to participate and have his say. The Inquiry Officer after examining the material on record submitted a report holding the workman guilty of the charges. The employer accepted the inquiry report and dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised the belated industrial dispute after several years of his dismissal, which was referred by the Central Government, as mentioned hereinabove, to the Tribunal, which answered the reference in his favour. 5. The Tribunal in paragraph No. 13 of his Award has observed that the Certified Standing Orders, applicable to the Establishment, classify acts of misconduct into two categories, namely, (i) flagrant misconduct; and (ii) less flagrant misconduct and has enumerated the misconduct falling into two categories. 5. The Tribunal in paragraph No. 13 of his Award has observed that the Certified Standing Orders, applicable to the Establishment, classify acts of misconduct into two categories, namely, (i) flagrant misconduct; and (ii) less flagrant misconduct and has enumerated the misconduct falling into two categories. The following misconducts, as per the said paragraph, have been classified as "flagrant misconduct": "(i) Wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior; (ii) Inciting other employees to strike illegally whilst in the Mines of Works; (iii) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Companys business or property; (iv) Taking of bribes or any illegal gratification whatsoever; (vi) Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours or any act subversive of discipline or efficiency; (vi) Deliberate damage to work in process or to any other property of the Company; (vii) Breach of the Mines Act, Regulations, Rules and Bye-laws where in force; (viii) Absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days; (ix) Negligence or neglect of duty likely to cause loss of limb or life ; and (x) Any such offence not included in the above as constitutes a lawful reason for dismissal." The following breaches have been classified as "less flagrant misconduct": (a) Irregular attendance without leave; (b) Late attendance; (c) Absence from place of work without permission or without sufficient cause; (d) Sleeping on duty; (e) Negligence or neglect of duty; (i) Distributing or exhibiting inside the premises handbills or posters without the previous sanction of the management; and (g) collection of money for any purpose within the premises during working hours without the permission of the management." The said paragraph further quotes the procedure and punishment provided for by the Certified Standing Orders with regard to the cases of "less flagrant misconduct" and the same is reproduced below: "1st offence Warning on his Service Card 2nd offence -do- 3rd offence Warning with suspension on his service Card 4th offence Works Manager or Mine Superintendent will exercise his discretion as to whether he imposes a further period of suspension or recommends his dismissal to the General Manager." 6. The cases falling under the category "flagrant misconduct" are treated as of serious nature entailing dismissal of the workman for breach of such duty, but the cases falling under the other category, i.e., "less flagrant misconduct", are those in which the minor breach of duty is involved and the punishment is also minor. In Paragraph No. 14 of the Award, the Tribunal has recorded the findings, relevant extract of which is reproduced below: "It may be pointed out here that the concerned workman was on sanctioned leave from January 24, 1978 to February 3, 1978 and he overstayed between the period from February 4, 1978 to February 15, 1978. Thus, his case does not come within the perview of absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days. His case can be comprehended under "less flagrant misconduct" as provided in the Certified Standing Order-absence from place of work without permission or without sufficient cause. Any way, I consider that by reason of his absence from duty without intimation from February 4, 1978 to February 15, 1978, the management was not justified in dismissing him from service and the action of the management by dismissing him from service on that account is considered harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct if any committed ........" 7. According to the Tribunal, the Workmans case does not come within the perview of absence without leave for more than ten consecutive days and his case falls under the category of "less flagrant misconduct". The Tribunal, accordingly, concluded that for remaining absent without intimation, the management was not justified in dismissing the workman from service and the punishment was, therefore, disproportionate to the misconduct committed. 8. The Award of the Tribunal is based on erroneous assumption. The Tribunal assumed that the workman did not remain absent without leave for more than 10 consecutive days. The Tribunal has erred in calculation. As per paragraph 14 as well as other paragraphs of the Award, the workman remained absent from duty from February 4, 1978 to February 15, 1978, i.e., 12 days, which is undoubtedly more than ten days. The workmans case therefore, falls under the category of "flagrant misconduct", which the Standing Orders treat as of serious nature entailing dismissal from service of the workman. The workmans case therefore, falls under the category of "flagrant misconduct", which the Standing Orders treat as of serious nature entailing dismissal from service of the workman. However, as mentioned above, the Tribunal by erroneous calculation treated the absence of workman as not of more than ten consecutive days and, accordingly, held that it is a case "flagrant misconduct", on the basis of which the punishment of dismissal should not have been awarded. On such a premise, the Tribunal also held that the punishment imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the misconduct. Such a finding cannot be sustained. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has in this connection submitted that even if it is admitted that the workman remained absent for more than ten consecutive days, the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and the finding in this regard is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. The quantum of punishment has to be seen with reference to the breach of duty/misconduct as laid down by the Certified Standing Orders, which are applicable in the establishment. In the instant case, the Certified Standing Orders have classified the misconduct in two categories "flagrant misconduct" and "less flagrant misconduct". If the Certified Standing Orders, which are binding on the parties, themselves treat the absence for more than ten consecutive days as a case of flagrant breach of duty, it is not open and proper to discard the same and come to a conclusion regarding quantum of punishment independently of it. The Tribunals finding with regard to punishment being harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct is based on the erroneous assumption, namely, the workman not being absent for more than ten consecutive days and that finding being contrary to the materials on record, the Award cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection has stated that the service card of the workman was placed before the Tribunal, the extract of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, perusal of which indicates that on several occasions the workman has remained absent without leave and he was issued warnings and was also awarded minor punishments of suspension from time to time, for such absence. 10. 10. The Tribunal has not recorded any specific finding about the validity of the domestic inquiry although such a question was raised before it. That apart, the Award is based on erroneous assumption. The matter, therefore, requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. 11. For the reason given above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award dated June 30, 1989 is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal for deciding the reference afresh in accordance with law.