ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 7.11.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, B.S. City, in reference case No. 6/96. The said award has answered the reference, which was in the following terms : "Whether the punishment of termination of services given to Sri Jatlu Karamkar, Welder-cum-Gas Cutter, Staff No. 273855, HRCF (O) Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the management is proper. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2. The case of the workman was that his 7 years old daughter was seriously ill and due to the same he had applied for leave from 7.2.1991. His daughter ultimately died on 24.2.1991 in Bokaro General Hospital. According to him he had personally handed over the leave application to his Controlling Officer stating the reasons for his inability to attend his duties but in spite of the same he was charge-sheeted for his absence. His explanation was not accepted and in the domestic enquiry he was erroneously held guilty and was dismissed from his services, by the Management. 3. The case of the Management is that the services of the workman were to be governed by the certified standing order of the Company. Since the joining of the petitioner he had no interest in his work and he started absenting even without approval of the Management. He was a habitual absentee and earlier he was charge-sheeted five times for that. The Management has given the detail of the unauthorized absence. It has been stated that the workman was again absent from duty without any appropriate leave. He was given show-cause notice. The workman had submitted his reply but the same was found unsatisfactory. Thereafter Enquiry Committee was constituted. In the enquiry, he was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee had awarded punishment of dismissal also considering his antecedent. The concerned workman thereafter disputed the said decision which led to the said Reference Case. In course of hearing the Management and the concerned workman adduced their evidences. The Labour Court on appraisal of the evidences came to the finding that the workman was absent due to illness of his daughter and that his absence was not willful. It was also found that he was not a habitual absentee. In course of hearing the Management and the concerned workman adduced their evidences. The Labour Court on appraisal of the evidences came to the finding that the workman was absent due to illness of his daughter and that his absence was not willful. It was also found that he was not a habitual absentee. Taking into consideration all the facts, material and evidence on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the punishment awarded to the workman Jatlu Karamkar is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The Labour Court thus set aside the punishment of dismissal and directed to re-instate the concerned workman by reducing the punishment to the stoppage of three increments and withholding of 75% of back wages. 4. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction as the Labour Court has relied on the evidences which are not admissible. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to independently consider the evidences and come to a different finding when he himself found that the domestic enquiry was free and fair. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, . It has been further submitted that in the case of Usha Beltron Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur it has been held that the interference with the finding recorded during the domestic enquiry is outside the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Labour Court is not an appellate Court and in that view the impugned award is wholly illegal. The Labour Court has entered into the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry on the basis of the evidences on record. Mr. Mishra, further submitted that in India Tourism Development Centre v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, X and Ors., reported in 2000 Lab IC 530, Delhi High Court has held that continued absentee of the workman makes him liable for punishment of dismissal on the basis of the past records. 5. Mr. B.V. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, submitted that the Labour Courts on thorough consideration of the evidences and the materials on record has recorded the findings and has given the impugned award. 5. Mr. B.V. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, submitted that the Labour Courts on thorough consideration of the evidences and the materials on record has recorded the findings and has given the impugned award. Since there is no apparent illegality on the face of it or any arbitrariness, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is not vitiated in any manner. He cited the decision of the Apex Court in Scooter India Ltd., Lucknow v. Labour Court, Lucknow and Ors., to fortify his points. He urged that the Labour Court has discussed all the points raised before him in detail and on consideration of legal and factual aspects has rendered the sound award. 6. After considering the said submissions of the parties and going through the impugned award and materials on record I find that the Labour Court has gone into every detail and has discussed the evidences and considered the facts and circumstances on record and has come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the workman Jatlu Karamkar is disproportionate to the act of his misconduct. The Labour Court has not exonerated the said workman but has interfered with the modified the quantum of punishment and directed for stoppage of his three increments and withholding of 75% of his back wages. In that view the decision cited by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has got no relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. (supra) has been held that the Industrial Court would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exits a statutory provision in this behalf. It has been further held that the Industrial Court should not interfere if the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser punishment may be imposed, but such an order cannot be passed on an irrational or extraneous factor and certainly not on compassionate ground. In the instant case, the punishment has been held to be disproportionate and the lesser punishment has been imposed not on the ground of compassion, rather the findings are based on rational consideration of the materials on record. In the instant case, the punishment has been held to be disproportionate and the lesser punishment has been imposed not on the ground of compassion, rather the findings are based on rational consideration of the materials on record. In Management of M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that it is not open to the Labour Court to sit in appeal over the finding of the Enquiry Officer and disagreeing with the findings. It was found in that case that the case was dealt with like an appellate Court and before the Labour Court no evidence was adduced. In that view, this Court held that since the Court relied on the evidence on the basis of which the Management has awarded the punishment, the Court has committed an error of jurisdiction in disagreeing with the finding and awarding the punishment. In India Development Tourism Centre case (supra) the Delhi High Court held that on perusal of the award it was found that the Management had been able to successfully prove the charges by adducing evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court proceeded to examine as to whether punishment awarded to the workman is justified. It was held that the Labour Court should not have interfered with the punishment given by the Management. In the instant case, the Management could not prove that the absence of the workman was intentional. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court came to a finding of fact that the absence of the workman was proved but the same was due to illness of his daughter who subsequently died in Bokaro General Hospital (Death certificate is Ext.-2). The Labour Court also found that the punishment of dismissal in such circumstance is disproportionate. The Labour Court has further found that the absence of workman from the duty was under the circumstances beyond his control and the same was not willful and considering the same, has awarded the lesser punishment I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned award of the Labour Court warranting interference, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to cost.