( 1 ) PETITIONER Reserve Bank is before me challenging the award, dated January 28, 1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial tribunal in C. R. No. 71 of 1991. ( 2 ) SECOND respondent workman was appointed as sweeper on March 10, 1971. He was transferred as Farash with effect from december 5, 1978. He was absenting from work without prior sanction and was not submitting leave applications in advance. On account of his irregular attendance management according to the petitioner was constrained to initiate a departmental enquiry. An enquiry was held. Enquiry officer concluded his enquiry vide his report, dated October 26, 1988, Enquiry officer held that the workman was guilty of the charges. The competent authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and ordered dismissal in terms of an order of dismissal, dated December 16, 1989. This dismissal order was subjected before the Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in terms of a dispute. Parties filed their respective statements, evidence was recorded. The industrial Tribunal, held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter, evidence was led. The Industrial Tribunal has chosen to give a finding that the misconduct is proved. However, the Tribunal invoking Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has chosen to order: reinstatement without back wages. This award is challenged. Heard the learned counsel, appearing for the respective parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. ( 3 ) SMT. Subha Ananth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would say that the material facts warrant: my interference. She says that the second respondent is irregular as can be seen from the material placed on record. He was irregular causing much inconvenience to the petitioner. In the order passed by the tribunal the Tribunal, has found that the dismissal of the employee proved and his misconduct was justified, therefore, the tribunal could not have ordered reinstatement in terms of Section 11 -A of the Act. She finds fault with the award of the Labour Court. She further says that the amount that has been made over in terms of Section 17-B would not be recovered from the workman concerned. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri. Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the workman/ r-2 would say that the impugned award requires to be sustained. Section 11-A has been properly considered in the case on hand. She further says that the amount that has been made over in terms of Section 17-B would not be recovered from the workman concerned. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri. Basheer Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the workman/ r-2 would say that the impugned award requires to be sustained. Section 11-A has been properly considered in the case on hand. Even otherwise, he says a lenient view may be taken. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. Admittedly bank has chosen to initiate disciplinary proceedings for his irregularity in terms of an enquiry by the enquiry Officer. Thereafter, dismissal order was passed. Matter was taken to the Industrial tribunal. Parties filed their respective statements and evidence was recorded. Industrial Tribunal ruled in terms of Annexure-G that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter, evidence was recorded. The Tribunal in the impugned award has considered the evidence and has come to a categorical conclusion in Para. 13 reads as under:"the evidence, both oral and documentary established beyond reasonable doubt that the first party is a habitual and chronic absentee and several considerations and concessions shown by the second party has (sic) not made the first party to realise his mistake. Such leniency gave some courage to this workman to continue his misconduct and the second party found that his conduct was uncontrollable. "this finding was given in the light of the evidence let in by the management before the labour Court. After coming to the said conclusion the Tribunal has chosen to interfere under section 11- A of the Act. ( 6 ) LET me see as to whether Section 11-A of the Act is available to the workman in the case on hand. Courts have consistently ruled that Section 11-A is available not in all cases but where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged against the workman. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Maan singh v. Union of India and others AIR 2003 sc 1800 : 2003 (3) SCC 464 has ruled as under:"relying on State of Punjab and others v. Ram Singh Ex- Constable AIR 1992 SC 2188 : 1992 (4) SCC 54 : 1993-I-LLJ-218 one of the arguments advanced before us is that it is only in cases where the misconduct is of the gravest kind an order of dismissal shall be made. This case was decided in the context of Rule 16. 2 (1) of the Punjab Police manual, 1934, Vol. II. The said Rule reads as follows: 'dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. ' after analysing the said provision, this court in Ram Singh case held that Rule 16. 2 (1) consists of two parts, firstly, dismissal shall be awarded for the gravest acts of misconduct and secondly, cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service and the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension should be taken into account in an appropriate case. The second part is referable to a misconduct which, by itself, may not warrant an order of dismissal and may be a ground to take a lenient view of giving an opportunity to reform and even after giving such opportunities, if the delinquent officer is proved to be incorrigible and found completely unfit to remain in service then in order to maintain discipline in the service appropriate punishments can be given. Therefore, when the charge against the appellants in each of these cases is habitual absence for long periods on several occasions unauthorisedly, the view taken by the disciplinary authority is justified. " ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court has again considered the case of absence in the case of Punjab and Sind bank and others v. Sakattar Singh 2001 (1) SCC 214 : 2001-I-LLJ-174, that long absence of an 'employee with no satisfactory explanation attracts termination order. ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, it is seen from the material placed on record, that several opportunities have been given to the workman with regard to his absence in the matter, the petitioner has availed as many as 70 months leave including extraordinary leave without pay and allowances. Several memoranda have been issued to him to show improvement in his leave record. In fact a lenient view was taken in the year 1974 hoping that he would show improvement. Several memoranda have been issued to him to show improvement in his leave record. In fact a lenient view was taken in the year 1974 hoping that he would show improvement. He was issued a charge-sheet in 1976 for remaining unauthorisedly absent for 27 days in as many as 15 spells; in 1981 one more charge-sheet was issued for remaining unauthorisedly absent for a period of 274 days between April 17, 1986 and July 31, 1988 in as many as 78 spells. In fact the Labour Court accepts this material on record. ( 10 ) IN the light of the conduct of the workman and in the light of proof of misconduct, I do not think that a case is made out for invoking Section 11 -A of the Act as held by the Labour Court. Any interference shown under Section 11 -A in such matters would be misplaced sympathy which would affect the working of the bank. A case is certainly made out by the management. ( 11 ) IN the given circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. Termination is upheld. However, it is made clear that the management is not to recover any amount already made over to the workman in terms of the order of this Court and as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the bank. ( 12 ) NO costs. --- *** --- .