JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 26th February, 2009, by which, the award of the Labour Court dated 31th December, 2002 was set aside by allowing the Writ Petition No. W.P. (L) 2448 of 2003. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that employee (now deceased) was duly appointed and confirmed in his service, and his service was terminated without due process of law and, therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement. It has further been submitted that the Labour Court has considered the matter in detail including the statement of Doctor who has clearly stated that the workman was under disability because of the reason he met with an accident and, therefore, he could not attend the duty. Here the provision of Section 25-F has not complied with is an admitted fact. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the statement of doctor in support of the contention that it was not the case of willful absence from the duty. 4. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the appellant-workman died and the present appeal is pursued by his widow. However, looking into the facts of the case, it appears that workman (now deceased) was found to be habitual absentee even by the Labour Court but the order of reinstatement was passed only on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the petitioner-workman was also earlier charge-sheeted because of remaining absent without leave and for that appellant-workman was given warning. Then the workman again absented himself from 8th October, 1986, for which, again notice and charge-sheet (Annexure-2) was given to the workman vide letter dated 28/31 December, 1987. In that background the name of the appellant-workman was struck off from the rolls of the company vide office order dated 5/18.03.1988 w.e.f. 29th December, 1988 (Annexure-3). It is clear from the charge-sheet dated 28-31 December, 1987 that charge against the petitioner of remaining absent from the duty was with respect to absence for specific 13 days in August, 1987 in September, 1987 for 13 days, in October, 1987 for 18 days and in November, 1987 13 days total 57 days in four months. It is clear from the charge-sheet dated 28-31 December, 1987 that charge against the petitioner of remaining absent from the duty was with respect to absence for specific 13 days in August, 1987 in September, 1987 for 13 days, in October, 1987 for 18 days and in November, 1987 13 days total 57 days in four months. Evidence of the doctor relates to the alleged accident of the workman which must have occurred on or about 29th December, 1987, which is a period subsequent to the alleged misconduct of the workman. So far as the absence from the duty for above period for which workman was charge-sheeted is concerned, there is no dispute. The employer took the action on the above ground and passed the order under specific Provision contained in Clause 20 (XI) of the Standing order which authorizes the employer to struck off the name of the workman in case he abandon or he did not report on duty. Therefore, in that situation if the order under challenge dated 5/18.03.1988 has been passed in the background of those facts then the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the award which has been passed by the Labour Court ignoring it's own finding that workman was a habitual absentee. 5. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that appellant rendered jobless in the year 1987 and thereafter he has also died. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that some sympathetic view may be take for granting some compensation to the widow of the workman and for that purpose, in legal terms, we cannot direct the respondent to do anything. It is for the appellant to approach the employer and it is the discretion of the employer to grant some compensation taking a sympathetic view if any representation regarding grant of compensation is filed by the workman's widow, the same may be disposed of by the employer within one month from the date of receipt of such representation. It is also made clear that if any termination benefit and other benefit if legally sustainable and for which the appellant-workman was entitled to, has not been given to the workman, the same may be given to the workman's wife. 7. Having no force, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.