JUDGMENT : A.L. Dave, J. 1. By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 9th April, 2002, passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 1164 of 1999, directing reinstatement of the present Respondent without back wages. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Respondent was in employment of the Petitioner as a Conductor. He was found to be regularly irregular in attending his job. This quality of his was noticed earlier on 16 occasions and minor punishments were inflicted on him. Lastly, during the year 1995-96 he worked only for 165 days, during the year 1996-97 he worked for only 143 days and lastly between 1st April, 1997 to 31st July, 1997, he worked only for six days. Due to this absenteeism, he was served with a charge sheet on 17.9.1997 and then departmentally proceeded against him. In the departmental inquiry, his case was that he was not keeping good health and was suffering from hyper tension, etc., however, in support of his say, he has not produced any medical evidence. At the end of inquiry, he was found guilty of absenteeism and considering his past history of 16 instances of absenteeism and about 124 other misconducts, he was dismissed from service by the Petitioner. The said order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. Before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, the Respondent had forgone his right to challenge the validity and legality of the departmental proceedings and pressed into service the only argument that the punishment was not commensurate with the misconduct. The Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, came to the conclusion that the punishment was disproportionately high for the misconduct alleged and, therefore, directed reinstatement of the Respondent without back wages. It is this order, which is challenged by the employer-Corporation by way of this petition. 3. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Saurabh G. Amin for Petitioner and Mr. Arvind K. Thakur for Respondent. 4. So far as validity and legality of the departmental proceedings are concerned, they are not in dispute. So far as the conduct of the Respondent of remaining consistently absent is concerned, that is also not in dispute. It is a matter of fact on record that on earlier 16 occasions, the Respondent was departmentally punished for remaining absent without justification. So far as validity and legality of the departmental proceedings are concerned, they are not in dispute. So far as the conduct of the Respondent of remaining consistently absent is concerned, that is also not in dispute. It is a matter of fact on record that on earlier 16 occasions, the Respondent was departmentally punished for remaining absent without justification. Apart from that, he has been departmentally punished on 124 such occasions and punishments have been inflicted on him. These facts would speak volume about the conduct of the Respondent. When the legality and validity of the departmental proceedings are not in dispute and when it is established that the Petitioner suffered from the vice of consistent absenteeism, the decision to dismiss the Respondent has to be closely viewed or assessed. 5. In public service, absenteeism will have a greater impact. The Respondent was working as a bus conductor with the Petitioner and his absence would have resulted in disruption of essential services like public transport which would result into unnecessary harassment to the citizens. Persons occupying such posts deprive the more needy and more deserving and may be more serviceable persons of the post that they are occupying and they need to be dealt with firmly to ensure better administration. 6. In a similar situation, Single Judge of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller, GSRTC v. Heirs of Inayat khan Sarifkhan Pathan, as reported in 2000 (0) GLHEL 203216, took the view that continuous absenteeism cannot be levelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment. 6.1. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maganbhai L. Chauhan v. Divisional Controller, GSRTC, as reported in 1999 (1) GLH 527, took the view that absence from duty especially in cases where the employee is connected with public services cannot be tolerated. Mere production of a medical certificate justifying absence, without prior intimation will not exonerate an employee, particularly when in the inquiry proceedings the charge is proved, looking to the past conduct and in absence of the delinquent examining the Doctor. That was a case where a conductor in the bus remained absent was dismissed from service. 6.2. The Supreme Court in a very similar situation in the matter of L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar, (2008) 1 SCC 224 held that habitual absenteeism amounts to gross violation of discipline. 7. That was a case where a conductor in the bus remained absent was dismissed from service. 6.2. The Supreme Court in a very similar situation in the matter of L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar, (2008) 1 SCC 224 held that habitual absenteeism amounts to gross violation of discipline. 7. In the opinion of this Court, there is no justification for absence of the Respondent for such a prolonged time. Such absenteeism only burdens the system and disturbs/disrupts the public services run by public bodies. In view of the consistent absenteeism of the Respondent the Court is of the view that dismissal of the Respondent from services was justified. The Labour Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act by setting aside the order of dismissal and ordering reinstatement. 8. In the result, the petition must succeed and is allowed. The impugned Order dated 9.4.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No. 1164 of 1999 is hereby set aside and punishment of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority is hereby confirmed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.