Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the first respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation challenging the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998. It has been stated that the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.811 of 1998, under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the file of the second respondent, to set aside the order of dismissal passed against the first respondent on the ground that the said order is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. He had prayed for reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. According to the first respondent, he had joined as a Conductor in the service of the petitioner Corporation in the year 1973. He was dismissed from service, after an enquiry had been conducted against him. Thereafter, based on a settlement concluded, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he was reemployed, as a new entrant, as a helper with a consolidated salary of Rs.500/-. However, he had gone on leave, as he was injured while working in the Tyre Retread Department. He had sent a medical certificate and a letter requesting for medical leave. A show cause notice, dated 9. 1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent had submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. Not being satisfied by the explanation submitted by the first respondent, the Management of the petitioner Corporation had dismissed him from service from 20.9.1996. .3. It has been further stated that the petitioner Corporation had filed a detailed counter statement in I.D.No.811 of 1998. In the said counter statement, it was contended that the first respondent was employed as a Conductor. He was dismissed from service based on the charges of collecting less fare from the passengers and causing loss, vide order, dated 8. 1992. Subsequently, he was reemployed as a helper, with effect from 2. 1993, pursuant to the settlement concluded, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent had submitted his explanation stating that he was absent from duty on medical grounds for the period from 27. 1994. He was granted leave till 29. 1994. 1992. Subsequently, he was reemployed as a helper, with effect from 2. 1993, pursuant to the settlement concluded, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent had submitted his explanation stating that he was absent from duty on medical grounds for the period from 27. 1994. He was granted leave till 29. 1994. Thereafter, a telegram had been sent to him directing him to report for duty and informing that the medical leave cannot be granted beyond 29. 1994. Even thereafter, the first respondent had absented himself, continuously, without leave and without permission, till 9. 1995. Hence, a charge memo, dated 9. 1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent had submitted his reply, dated 9. 1995. 4. It has been further stated that since the explanation submitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted against him, based on the charges levelled against the first respondent. The enquiry officer had submitted his report, dated 11. 1995, holding that the charges against the first respondent were proved. A second show cause notice, dated 11. 1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent had submitted his reply, on 20.3.1996. Since the explanation submitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory, he was dismissed from service, on 20.9.1996. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order dismissing him from service, the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent labour Court, in I.D.No.811 of 1998. The second respondent labour Court, without considering the evidences on record, had passed the award, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998, setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 20.9.1996, and had directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent, without backwages, with continuity of service and other benefits, by awarding the lesser punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998, is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998, is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It was further submitted that the second respondent labour Court had failed to note that the first respondent was absent from duty, without prior permission and without leave having been sanctioned by the petitioner Corporation. The first respondent had absented himself from duty from 29. 1994 to 9. 1995. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation had dismissed the first respondent from service from 20.9.1996. The petitioner Corporation had issued a charge memo, dated 9. 1995, and an enquiry had been conducted. The first respondent had participated in the enquiry and he was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer had submitted his enquiry report finding that the charges levelled against the first respondent had been proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice, dated 11. 1995, had been issued to the first respondent. The explanation submitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory. Therefore, he was dismissed from service, on 20.9.1996. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the second respondent labour Court, had also failed to note that the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the first respondent on the basis of the previous misconduct committed by the first respondent. Therefore, from the records available, it is also clear that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no reason for the second respondent labour Court to set aside the order of dismissal passed against the first respondent and to reduce the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect, imposed on the first respondent. .9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the conduct of the first respondent in absenting himself from duty, has caused serious dislocation in the operation of the buses by the petitioner Corporation. .9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the conduct of the first respondent in absenting himself from duty, has caused serious dislocation in the operation of the buses by the petitioner Corporation. Since the first respondent had committed a grave misconduct attracting the major punishment of dismissal from service, it is erroneous on the part of the second respondent labour Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to reduce the punishment to that of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 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 to interfere with the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998. 11. It is seen that the second respondent labour Court had given sufficient reasons for reducing the punishment imposed on the first respondent to that of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. The labour Court had found that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent workman was disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him. It was also found that the enquiry officer had not considered the medical certificate produced by the first respondent workman. Proper reasons have been given by the second respondent labour Court to come to its conclusions for invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to reduce the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent to that of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.