Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 15. 2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000. It has been stated that the first respondent herein had raised an industrial dispute, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, before the second respondent labour Court, to set aside the order of dismissal issued on him, on the ground that it is against the law and the principles of natural justice. The first respondent had claimed reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 3. It has been submitted that the first respondent had joined as a driver in the petitioner Corporation, on 30.6.1992. His last drawn salary was Rs.5,000/-, per month. While so, a charge memo, dated 12. 1997, had been issued to the first respondent for his continuous absent from duty, from 211. 1997. The first respondent has stated that though he did not receive the charge memo, the petitioner Management had conducted an enquiry. A show cause notice, dated 25. 1998, had been issued to the first respondent stating that the charges levelled against him had been proved. Therefore, he was dismissed from service, on 17. 1998. The first respondent had also stated that he was absent from duty, from 211. 1997 to 12. 1998, due to his sudden illness. He had also stated, before the second respondent labour Court, that he had submitted an explanation and that he was absent from duty as he was on leave, after appropriate intimation had been given to the petitioner Management. It was alleged that the charge memo had been issued without any basis and the first respondent had been dismissed from service without giving him sufficient opportunity to defend himself. 4. It has also been stated that the petitioner Corporation had filed a detailed counter statement, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, on the file of the second respondent labour Court. In the said counter statement it was contended that the first respondent was absent from duty, from 211. 1997, without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave. The said act of the first respondent had resulted in dislocation in the operation of the buses by the petitioner Corporation. An explanation had been called for from the first respondent, on 12. 1997. 1997, without obtaining prior permission or sanction of leave. The said act of the first respondent had resulted in dislocation in the operation of the buses by the petitioner Corporation. An explanation had been called for from the first respondent, on 12. 1997. However, the first respondent had not submitted his explanation. The first respondent was absent from duty till 12. 1998. However, he had participated in the enquiry and he had given evidence during the domestic enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry report had been submitted by the enquiry officer, on 14. 1998, holding that the charges against the first respondent had been proved. Therefore, a second show cause notice had been issued to the first respondent. Thereafter, the first respondent had submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the first respondent, he was dismissed from service by the Management of the petitioner Corporation. In such circumstances, the first respondent had raised an Industrial Dispute, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, before the second respondent labour Court. 5. It has been further stated that the second respondent labour Court, without considering the evidence on record, had passed the award, dated 15. 2002, in I.D.No.268 of 2000, setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 17. 1998, passed by the Management of the petitioner Corporation, dismissing the first respondent from service and it had directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent, without backwages, with continuity of service and other benefits and had awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. 6. Aggrieved by the said award, dated 15. 2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000, passed by the second respondent labour Court, the petitioner Corporation has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the award of the labour Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case. The labour Court had failed to note that the first respondent was absent from duty without prior permission or sanction of leave, from 211. 1997 to 12. 1998. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation had issued a charge memo, dated 12. 1997, and an enquiry had been conducted following the principles of natural justice. The first respondent had participated in the enquiry and had defended himself. 1997 to 12. 1998. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation had issued a charge memo, dated 12. 1997, and an enquiry had been conducted following the principles of natural justice. The first respondent had participated in the enquiry and had defended himself. However, the enquiry officer had found that the charges against the first respondent had been proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry, a second show cause notice, dated 25. 1998, had been issued to the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent had submitted his explanation. Since the explanation submitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory, he was dismissed from service, on 17. 1998. Thus, the order of dismissal, dated 17. 1998, is in accordance with law and the second respondent labour Court had erred in setting aside the same and imposing a lesser punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect, on the first respondent. Thus, the award of the second respondent labour Court is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Since the first respondent had committed a grave misconduct by absenting himself without obtaining the prior permission of the petitioner Corporation and without leave being sanctioned, the second respondent labour Court cannot invoke its discretionary power to reduce the punishment imposed on the first respondent. Further, the past conduct of the first respondent had also been taken into account before he was dismissed from service. The unauthorised absence of the first respondent from duty has caused disturbance in the operation of the bus services operated by the petitioner Corporation, causing loss and hardship to the public at large. Therefore, the second respondent labour Court has erred in reducing the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent by the petitioner Corporation, invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. .9. However, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the award of the labour Court is in accordance with law and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Corporation is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The second respondent labour Court had given sufficient reasons for reducing the punishment imposed on the first respondent. The second respondent labour Court had given sufficient reasons for reducing the punishment imposed on the first respondent. Since the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent for his unauthorised absence is disproportionate in nature, the labour Court had invoked its discretionary jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to impose the lesser punishment of reduction of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. Further, the second respondent had denied the first respondent the backwages due to him. In such circumstances, the award of the labour Court reducing the punishment of dismissal from service, awarded to the first respondent, to that of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect, is proper and sustainable in law. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Corporation has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the second respondent labour Court, dated 15. 2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000, reducing the punishment imposed on the first respondent. The second respondent labour Court had considered all the relevant factors before passing its award, dated 15. 2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000. Sufficient reasons had been shown by the second respondent labour Court before coming to its conclusions. The labour Court had found that even though a second show cause notice had been issued to the first respondent, with regard to his past conduct, no particulars had been given therein. Thus, it was found that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent workman was disproportionate in nature. As such, the labour Court had concluded that it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the punishment imposed on the first respondent from dismissal from service to that of reduction of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. Further, the labour Court had also denied the backwages claimed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, it is clear that the contentions of the petitioner Corporation cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, this Court declines to interfere with the award of the labour Court, dated 15. 2002, made in I.D.No.268 of 2000. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.