SHARAD D. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) THE Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (Amul Dairy), Anand, petitioner - hereinafter referred to as the Management. Chargesheet was issued to the workman alleging that the workman remained absent unauthorisedly. Departmental enquiry was held wherein he was found guilty of the charges framed against him and resultantly, his services were terminated by the management vide order dtd. 8/9/1984. Workman raised industrial dispute challenging his termination which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. ( 2 ) INITIALLY the Reference was registered in the Labour Court, Nadiad as Reference No. 63 of 1985. Subsequently, the said Reference was transferred to the Labour Court, Anand and renumbered as Reference No. 99 of 1992. The workman filed his statement of claim making averments to the effect that he was employed with the management as a Worker and his services were terminated by the management w. e. f. 8/9/1984 after serving a chargesheet and holding an inquiry. He challenged the fining of the inquiry officer submitting that he was not given full and fair opportunity in the enquiry proceeding conducted against him and impugned order of dismissal was unjustified and malafide and by way of victimization. The workman admitted the inquiry initiated by the management vide Ex. 20 and prayed that the punishment of termination is harsh and he may be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. He also submitted that the punishment awarded to him was highly disproportionate to the allegations levelled against him. Written statement was filed on behalf of the management contesting the claim of the workman stating that he was given full opportunity in the enquiry proceedings and he has himself signed the enquiry proceedings without any protest. It was further submitted that findings of enquiry officer were based on evidence produced before him. The enquiry officer had given due consideration to the explanation given by the workman. The disciplinary authority was fully conscious of the human aspect by considering the past record also when the concerned workman had been awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment which did not bring any improvement in the conduct of the workman, the termination had to be resorted to. Various allegations made in the statement of claim were denied by the petitioner management. Various allegations made in the statement of claim were denied by the petitioner management. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing both the sides, and considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court, Anand passed the impugned award on 30/12/1993 in Reference No. 99 of 1992 directing the petitioner management to reinstate the respondent workman in service with continuity of service without back wages, within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the Award by the State. ( 4 ) MR. DEEPAK V. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner management has mainly argued that the petitioner is a Federal Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961; It is engaged in the activities of procuring, processing and marketing milk and milk products and in related activities for promoting Dairy activities in general; the petitioner is having its dairy plant at Anand known as "amul Dairy"; the respondent workman was working as a worker in the production department of the petitioner dairy; the respondent was in habit of remaining absent without leave, time and again; initially the respondent was warned orally; inspite of oral warnings, the respondent continued to remain absent frequently for long time without leave; the respondent was given 95 written warnings and suspension for twice for four days, but there was no improvement whatsoever in the habit of the respondent to remain absent frequently without leave; during the period between January 1980 and December 1980, the respondent has attended for duty only for 141 days out of 313 working days and remained absent for 121 days without leave; he was granted 30 days leave with pay and 21 days leave without pay; similarly during the period between January 1981 and December 1981, the respondent reported for work for 178 days only out of 313 days and remained absent for 76 days without leave though he was granted 36. 1/2 days leave with pay and 19. 1/2 days leave without pay; during the period between January 1982 to December 1982, the respondent reported for work from 200. 1/2 days out of 313 days and remained absent for 59 days without leave and remained absent for 43 days and 6. 1/2 days leave with pay and 19. 1/2 days leave without pay; during the period between January 1982 to December 1982, the respondent reported for work from 200. 1/2 days out of 313 days and remained absent for 59 days without leave and remained absent for 43 days and 6. 1/2 days without pay; during the period between January 1983 and March 1983, the respondent workman reported for work for 57 days out of 77 working days and remained absent for 4 days and remained absent for 14 days with pay and 2 days without pay (Annexure-A); in April 1984, the respondent remained absent for 11 days without leave. He has further argued that a show cause notice cum-chargesheet dtd. 30/4/1984 / 3/5/1984 was issued to the respondent along with details about absenteeism without leave for 53 days from April 1983 to March 1984 (Annexure-B ). Pursuant to the said show cause notice, regular and proper inquiry was held against the respondent in which charges levelled against the respondent workman were held proved. Copy of report of the inquiry officer is produced on record (Annexure-C ). The disciplinary authority i. e. the Managing Director of the petitioner, after taking into consideration the report of the inquiry officer and past record of the respondent workman decided that the respondent workman deserved to be dismissed from service and accordingly vide order dtd. 8/9/1984, the services of the respondent workman were terminated. The respondent workman was also paid one months notice pay under the provisions of Standing Orders and one months wages under the provisions of Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent workman filed its statement of claim at Ex. 4 alleging that his services have been terminated illegally, without giving any notice or notice pay, and without affording any reasonable opportunity in violation of the principles of natural justice, the service of the respondent has been terminated by way of victimization and prayed for reinstatement. The petitioner filed written statement Ex. 9 denying the allegations and stating true facts and stating that the service of the respondent workman has been terminated for committing serious misconduct of habitually remaining absent without leave time and again and after holding legal and proper inquiry in connection with the charges levelled against the respondent workman. The petitioner filed written statement Ex. 9 denying the allegations and stating true facts and stating that the service of the respondent workman has been terminated for committing serious misconduct of habitually remaining absent without leave time and again and after holding legal and proper inquiry in connection with the charges levelled against the respondent workman. The petitioner had placed entire record of the inquiry before the Labour Court and, the respondent has accepted the propriety and legality of the departmental inquiry and the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, by filing an application at Ex. 20 and the only argument advanced on behalf of the respondent workman was that considering the nature of the offence, the punishment is harsh. He has further argued that the Labour Court ignored the proved misconduct and admission by the respondent and illegally directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman on his original post with continuity of service. Consequently it is argued that the Award suffers from serious infirmities and apparent errors of facts and law and hence the same may be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner management has placed reliance on the following decisions; [1] 1997 (2) G. L. H 331. (Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs. Navinchandra i. Vyas) [2] 2002 (II) LLJ 775 . (State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Sujata malhotra) [3] 2000 (8) SCC 12 (State Bank of India vs. Tarun Kumar Benerjee and ors.) [4] 2004 (3) LLJ 543 (SC) (Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sardar Singh ). [5] 2004 (2) LLJ 50 (Michel Selvaraj vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Anr.) [6] 2000 (II) LLJ 1373 . (State Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee and others ). ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Mr. T. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent workman has mainly argued that the respondent workman was permanent employee of petitioner - Amul Dairy and his service has been terminated illegally and arbitrarily under the garb of inquiry having been conducted against him for remaining absent. He has further argued that the respondent workman in his statement has stated that his mother was suffering from heart disease and the resepondent workman was also suffering from some ailments and has produced medical certificates to that effect also. He has further argued that the respondent workman in his statement has stated that his mother was suffering from heart disease and the resepondent workman was also suffering from some ailments and has produced medical certificates to that effect also. He has further argued that in the inquiry, no sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent and the inquiry was eye-wash and the same was in breach of the principles of natural justice. He has further argued that the Labour Court has rightly held in the award that for remaining absent, the respondent was punished by suspension order and has undergone punishment. He has further argued that the labour court considering the evidence on record and hearing both the sides, has rightly come to the conclusion that the termination is harsh in view of the unauthorized absent and therefore, the Labour Court denied back wages and only granted reinstatement and the punishment for denial of back wages by the Labour Court from 1984 till the date of award i. e. December 1993 is sufficient punishment and there is no error much less any apparent error of law or facts and therefore, the petition may be rejected. He has also submitted that the respondent workman has not been paid his terminal benefits like gratuity, unavailed privileges leave, bonus, and other terminal benefits. ( 7 ) MR. T. R. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court (Coram ; H. K. Rathod, J.) dtd. 9/3/2000 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 8088 of 1989, wherein this Court confirmed award of reinstatement without back wages. He has also relied upon the decision in the case of Valsa Kumari ASSAC, Asst. Engineer vs. State of Kerala and anr. reported in 1999 SCC (LNS) 666 as well as decision in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Tarun Kumar Banerjee and others, reported in 2000 (II) LLJ 1373 , where the Honble apex Court held that the termination on account unauthorized absent is unduly harsh. Consequently, he has prayed to reject the petition with cost. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent workman in the reference has accepted the correctness, legality and propriety of the report of the inquiry officer, initiated against him, by filing an application Ex. Consequently, he has prayed to reject the petition with cost. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent workman in the reference has accepted the correctness, legality and propriety of the report of the inquiry officer, initiated against him, by filing an application Ex. 20 and therefore, the only question to be decided in the present petition is as to whether the Labour Court was right in holding that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the respondent workman was harsh and disproportionate and could have given the relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service to the workman. ( 9 ) FROM the evidence on record, it is clear that during the period between January 1980 and December 1980, the respondent attended for work only for 141 days out of 313 days, he remained absent for 121 days without leave, he was granted 30 days leave with pay and 21 days leave without pay. Similarly during the period between January 1981 to December 1981, the respondent reported for work for 178 days out of 313 working days, the respondent remained absent for 76 days without leave though he was granted 36. 1/2 days leave with pay and 18. 1/2 days leave without pay. Likewise, during the period between January 1982 to December, 1982, the respondent reported for work for 200. 1/2 days out of 313 working days, the respondent remained absent for 59 days without leave and remained absent for 43 days with pay and 6. 1/2 days without pay. Further, during the period between January 1983 and March 1983, the respondent workman reported for work for 57 days out of 77 working days and remained absent for 4 days, the respondent remained absent for 14 days with pay and 2 days without pay. Furthermore, in April, 1984, the respondent remained absent for 11 days. Further, the petitioner management had given 95 times written warning to the respondent workman and also imposed punishment of suspension for twice for a period of four days. However, the respondent continued to remain absent from duty. Furthermore, in April, 1984, the respondent remained absent for 11 days. Further, the petitioner management had given 95 times written warning to the respondent workman and also imposed punishment of suspension for twice for a period of four days. However, the respondent continued to remain absent from duty. The petitioner before passing the order of termination, had given sufficient opportunities to the respondent workman in past to improve his conduct but the respondent has not been improved and ultimately the petitioner considering the past service record of the respondent workman taken decision to terminate the service of the respondent workman. Further, from the record, it is clear that proper inquiry was held against the respondent workman, wherein the charge has been proved against the respondent workman and the respondent workman has accepted the correctness and legality of the inquiry by filing an application Ex. 20 before the Labour Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, judgements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the past service record of the respondent workman, the order of termination is just and proper and not harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court has erred in holding that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman was harsh and disproportionate and the relief of reinstatement could not have been granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent workman are concerned, the same are not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the facts of those cases and the facts of the present case are quite different and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to get benefit of the said decisions. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned award dtd. 30/12/1993 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference No. 99 of 1992 granting reinstatement to the respondent workman with continuity of service, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. .