JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated January 22, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 1315/2006. That petition was directed against the Award passed by the Labour Court dated August 22, 2005. The relevant facts are that the Appellant was in service of the Respondent. A departmental inquiry was held against him on the charge of misconduct. The misconduct alleged against the Appellant was that he remained absent from duty from June 1, 1986 until December 2, 1986 without getting leave sanctioned. On a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government, the Labour Court held that firstly the inquiry was not fair and proper and therefore, the employer was permitted to lead evidence before the Labour Court. The employer led evidence and after considering that evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the misconduct alleged against the Appellant has been proved. It also found that the punishment imposed on the Appellant is disproportionate to the guilt and it also found that the Appellant had reached the age of superannuation in the year 1996 and therefore, he cannot be granted reinstatement. The Labour Court, therefore, held that the awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-would serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Labour Court answered the reference by directing the employer to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Appellant, Only the Appellant filed writ petition against the Award of the Labour Court. That writ petition was decided by order dated January 22, 2007. The learned Single Judge found that no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the misconduct is proved. He held that the findings that the punishment is disproportionate, is not the finding Challenged by the employer, therefore, it will not be appropriate for him to record any finding on the question whether the labour Court was justified in holding that the punishment is disproportionate or not. The only question that was considered by the learned Single Judge was whether awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- can be said to be appropriate. The learned Single Judge has considered that question and found that no interference in the Award is called for. He, therefore, dismissed the petition. 2. The only question that was considered by the learned Single Judge was whether awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- can be said to be appropriate. The learned Single Judge has considered that question and found that no interference in the Award is called for. He, therefore, dismissed the petition. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for Appellant urged that the order of dismissal was made on June 9, 1988 and the Appellant attained the age of superannuation in the year 1996, awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only cannot be said to be adequate. He also made grievance that he is also entitled to, in addition to compensation, legal dues, gratuity, encashment of leave etc. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. Perused the record. The guilt of the Appellant which has been held to be proved by the Labour Court as also by the learned Single Judge is remaining absent for the period of six months without getting leave sanctioned. In our opinion, considering the nature of service, remaining absent from duty without getting leave sanctioned, is a serious misconduct, from the point of view of the discipline in the establishment. In our opinion, the Appellant, therefore, definitely was not entitled to payment of back wages. What is further to be seen is that the Appellant has also not led any evidence before the Labour Court about his gainful employment or otherwise during the intervening period, and therefore, the order of the Labour Court awarding compensation cannot be faulted. The learned Single Judge has found that the Labour Court directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- which is approximately equivalent to 18 months salary at the rate of Rs. 2800/-which was the salary he was receiving when he was dismissed from service. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-employer stated that if the payment of legal dues is not already made to the Appellant, the legal dues of the Appellant would be paid to him with the compensation within a period of three weeks from today. The statement is accepted.