JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner-Management of Lohapati Colliery of M/s. BCCL has challenged the award dated 14th February, 1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhanbad in Reference No. 20/90, whereby and whereunder, the learned Tribunal held the order of dismissal bad being disproportionate to the charges, set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the workman with 50% back wages as measure of penalty. 2. The workman-Ram Bhuiya being absent from duty without prior permission since 25th September, 1987 the Management initiated a departmental proceeding on 6th November, 1987. In the domestic enquiry, the workman having found guilty of the charge of absence from duty was dismissed from service vide order dated 8th March, 1988. 3. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its power conferred by Clause (d) and Sub-sections (1) and (2-A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by order No. L-20012/ 234/89-IR (Coal-I) dated 12th February, 1990, referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Tribunal : "Whether the management of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., in relation to Lohapati Colliery in Mohuda Area No. II is justified in dismissing the workman Shri Ram Baran Bhuiya. Minor Loader w.e.f. 8.3.1988? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?" 4. The tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the management before the Enquiry Officer, held the workman absented from duty continuously since 25th September, 1987 without obtaining prior permission or without giving information of his absence to the management. It further held that the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer is be fair and proper. 5. The counsel for the petitioner-management relied on aforesaid findings of learned Presiding Officer at paragraphs 8 and 11 of the award, and submitted that the charges haying found true, in the interest of administration this workman should be punished. If the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges learned Presiding Officer should have converted the major punishment to some minor punishment. Reliance was placed on Supreme Courts decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhas Chandra Sharma, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 324 , wherein the Court held that the power of Labour Court to give relief does not extend to grant relief where the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. 6. Reliance was placed on Supreme Courts decision in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhas Chandra Sharma, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 324 , wherein the Court held that the power of Labour Court to give relief does not extend to grant relief where the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. 6. In the present case, it will be evident that the workman was unauthorised absent from duty since 25th September, 1987 for about two months (25th September, 1987 to 6th November, 1987, i.e. the day the charge-sheet was issued). 7. In the domestic enquiry, the management did not adduce evidence that the workman concerned was a habitual absentee without leave or without sufficient cause. The learned Presiding Officer noticed that the alleged absence from duty is first act of such misconduct. The domestic enquiry though held to be fair and proper, but the fact remains that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte, behind the back of the workman. The learned Presiding Officer noticed that there was nothing on the record to suggest that the workman refused to receive any notice of departmental proceeding issued to him. Ext. M-II is the envelope containing such notice, on which the endorsement of the postal peon was that that no such person available in the village Mouri, P.O. Govindpur. From Ext. M-IV it is clear that the other notice was returned as the address of the workman was shown not known. 8. There can be unauthorised absence from duty, amounting to misconduct, but all the unauthorised absence from duty may not amount to misconduct. For example, without prior permission or intimation, for no reason, if a person remains absent from duty for days together, it may amount to misconduct, but in case where a person is absent from duty without prior permission for the reasons such as flood, illness, etc. it will not amount to misconduct. 9. In the present case, the notices of departmental proceeding having not served on workman some of them having returned showing address "not known", the workman having not given opportunity to address the issue whether unauthorised absence from duty was because of some justified reason or not, I find no reason to interfere or alter the award. There being no merit the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.