RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) ). THE present petition is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (G. S. R. T. C.) against the award passed in Reference (LCJ) No. 231/1993 dated 9th of May, 2000. ( 2 ) ). THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent-workman, who was serving as a driver, having put in two years service, remained absent from 1st of November, 1988 to 26th March, 1989. The learned Judge has discussed the case of the respondent-workman in para-2 of the award, wherein, it is stated that when the respondent-workman was serving in Amreli Division, Una Depot, he had a snake bite on duty and therefore, he was required to be admitted to the hospital. It is the case of the respondent-workman that he had given written intimation along with a doctorate certificate about the snake bite to the authorities and in spite of that the petitioner-G. S. R. T. C. , after having held the departmental inquiry, ex parte decided to impose the penalty of dismissal on the respondent-workman. This dismissal order was the subject matter of the Reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after having discussed the case of the G. S. R. T. C. in para-3, though came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent-workman is proved while considering the quantum of punishment, decided that the penalty imposed is too harsh, specially, when there was no history of the respondent-workman being irregular or any similar incident in the past, ordered for reinstatement without back-wages with continuity of service. ( 3 ) ). MR. H. C. Rawal, learned Advocate appearing for G. S. R. T. C. , submitted that the Labour Court, having held that the charge is proved against the workman, ought not to have exercised its discretion under section-11a. Mr. Raval also submitted that to grant continuity of service of over seven years to the respondent-workman, who has put in only two years service, is not reasonable and therefore, the award of the Labour Court is required to be interfered with at least on that count. ( 4 ) ). TAKING into consideration the rival contentions of both the sides, it is deemed fit that the award of the Labour Court is modified only to the effect that the respondent-workman be given reinstatement without continuity of service. ( 4 ) ). TAKING into consideration the rival contentions of both the sides, it is deemed fit that the award of the Labour Court is modified only to the effect that the respondent-workman be given reinstatement without continuity of service. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. No order as to costs. .