Order This intra court appeal has been filed by the management against the order dated 27.6.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2971 of 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by it affirming the judgment of Labour• Court reinstating the workman-respondent no. 2 with 50% of back wages. 2. A charge-sheet dated 17.4.1992 was served on the workman which reads as follows: "You are hereby informed that you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action for having committed following acts of misconduct. 37. (1) willful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause. (2) Neglect of duty. Brief description of the incidence corresponding to the acts of misconduct as stated above is as follows: You have been absenting continuously from duty from 10.3.1992 without any information, leave or permission. You have also been found in the habit of frequently absenting from your duty without permission, information or sanction of leave. In the past also you have been cautioned verbally and in writing for irregular attendance and/or willful action, but there has been no improvement for your behaviour." 2. Workman submitted his reply. It was not found satisfactory. An inquiry committee was constituted to inquire into the allegation of habitual unauthorized absence of the workman. The workman participated. He was found guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, after considering the entire matter terminated the services of workman vide letter no. 31.10.1992. An industrial dispute was raised. The following reference was made: "Whether the termination of services of Sri Bhubneshwar Manjhi Khalasi. Staff No. 488868. HRCF M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" It was registered as Reference Case No. 18 of 1996. The Labour Court by its Award dated 20.9.2002 held that the termination was not proper and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other consequential benefits. HRCF M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City is proper? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" It was registered as Reference Case No. 18 of 1996. The Labour Court by its Award dated 20.9.2002 held that the termination was not proper and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50% of back wages and other consequential benefits. The Labour Court inter alia observed as follows-in the charge-sheet, the specific instances such as the date, months or years on which the workman was absenting in the past was not mentioned and it only mentioned the absence from 10.3.1992 that even it the workman admitted that he did not give any prior information for his absence, the onus of proving the charge was on the management; that for the past act of absence, the workman was already punished and so the same cannot be considered particularly, when the workman has not been charged specifically for those absences. 3. The management questioned the said Award by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2971 of 2003. By the impugned order dated 27.6.2003, it was dismissed. The learned Single Judge inter alia observed that the workman was charge-sheeted for his unauthorised absence from duty from 10.3.1992, but he was allowed to join his duty on 17.4.1992 with some medical papers; and that since the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact after appreciation of entire evidence, the writ court could not substitute its own findings as an Appellate Court on appreciating entire evidence for coming to a different finding. It was lastly observed that moreover absence from the duty for few days could not be a ground to terminate the services. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows. The charge-sheet clearly indicated the misconduct namely willful and habitual absence- from duty with" out sufficient cause and neglect of duty, while indicating the last instance of absconding continuously from duty from 10.9.1992, it was also clearly indicated that the workman was also found in the habit of frequently absenting from the duty without permission, information or sanction, and in the past also he was cautioned verbally and in writing for irregular attendance and for willful absence and there has been no improvement in his behaviour. The workman was appointed as a displaced person on 20.11.1981. The workman was appointed as a displaced person on 20.11.1981. He was charge-sheeted and punished on a number of occasions for dissatisfactory services and unauthorised absence from duty. He was warned on 8.5.1984. Then he was let-off with warning for his unauthorised absence for 104 days within six months from April 1988 to December 1988. Again for remaining absent unauthorisedly for 55 days within a period of four months, he was censured by letter dated 3.11.1989. Between January 1989 to October 1989, he absented for 92 days for which he was let-off with warning. He was again given warning for absenting unauthorisedly from 20.11.1989 to 24.11.1989 by letter dated 27.12.1989. His pay was reduced to minimum scale for unauthorised absence for 28 days. The workman worked only 156 days in 1988, 188 days in 1989, 173 days in 1990 and 195 days in 1991. He was given ample opportunity to improve his conduct. As usual, again he started absenting from 10.3.1992. When the charge-sheet was issued on 17.4.1992, he immediately joined and submitted medical papers. He was allowed to join subject to disciplinary proceeding. It was not necessary to give reference of all previous absences in the charge-sheet when a summary of past conduct was clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet. The workman knew and understood the chargers. The Labour Court wrongly shifted the onus on the management even when the workman admitted that he did not give any prior information for his absence. The Award of the Labour Court is also perverse as the past unauthorised absence was not considered saying that the workman was given punishment, censured and warning for those absences. He lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court could not be disturbed in the writ petition and for absence of duty for few days, workman could not be terminated. He therefore submitted that the Award and the Order of learned Single Judge may be set aside. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 supported the Award and the impugned order and submitted that the past unauthorised absence was rightly not taken into consideration, as the workman was already warned, censured and punished for those absences. 6. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 supported the Award and the impugned order and submitted that the past unauthorised absence was rightly not taken into consideration, as the workman was already warned, censured and punished for those absences. 6. Thus, the questions are whether the award is perverse and whether in the present case, the past conduct of the workman could be taken into account or not? 7. It is true that the scope of interference with the award under writ jurisdiction is limited. But if it is perverse, it calls for interference. With regard to past conduct, it is settled position that, 'it is desirable that the delinquent employee may be informed by the disciplinary authority that his past conduct would be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require." [please see paragraph 30 of the judgment reported in (2009)13 SCC 102 , Union of India vs. Bishamber Das Dogra]. As noticed above, the charge-sheet clearly indicated the misconduct as willful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause and neglect of duty. While indicating the unauthorised absence from 10.3.1992, it was also clearly informed in the charge-sheet that the workman was found in the habit of frequently absenting from duty, without permission, information, sanction or leave, and in the past also he was cautioned verbally and in writing, but there was no improvement. The management proved that by letter dated 8.5.1984, the he was warned for unauthorised absence and then it also proved that he attended his duty only for 156 days in the year 1988, 188 days in 1989, 170 days in 1990 and 195 days in 1991, for which, he was let-off with warning, censure and was punished by reduction to minimum pay scale etc. Thus it cannot be said that the workman had no sufficient notice of the charges. Lastly, he remained absent unauthorisedly from 10.3.1992 and when a charge-sheet was issued on 17.4.1992, he immediately joined with some medical papers. He was allowed to join, subject to the outcome of departmental proceedings. Thus it cannot be said that the workman had no sufficient notice of the charges. Lastly, he remained absent unauthorisedly from 10.3.1992 and when a charge-sheet was issued on 17.4.1992, he immediately joined with some medical papers. He was allowed to join, subject to the outcome of departmental proceedings. The Award of Labour Court is wholly perverse inasmuch as, the onus was wrongly placed on the management to prove the charge even when He workman admitted that he did not give any prior information for his absence. Secondly, the past conduct could not be ignored saying that action was already taken against the workman for those absences. Thirdly, the Labour Court said that the workman was not charged specifically for those absences, whereas the charges about past absenteeism was clearly informed to the workman in the charge-sheet itself. 8. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the Award is perverse and accordingly it is set aside. Consequently the impugned order is also set aside and the writ petition and this appeal stands allowed, and the interim order dated 6.10.2004 stands vacated. However, no costs.