ORDER : 1. The petitioner Municipal Corporation has brought under challenge award dated 19th May 2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.340 of 2008, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference by setting aside the order of termination passed on ground of misconduct of remaining absent without leave. The Labour Court has not awarded reinstatement and/or any back-wages, while formally or notionally setting aside the order of termination, in view of the fact that the respondent workman reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the reference proceedings. The direction requiring the employer to reinstate the respondent is also not passed. 2. All that the Labour Court has awarded to the respondent workman, is direction to the petitioner to pay all terminal benefits to the respondent. 3. So as to appreciate the controversy and challenge raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to take into account some of the relevant facts involved in present case. 2.1. It emerges from the record that the respondent workman had, during the course of employment and while he was on duty, suffered injury. 2.2. The said factual aspect is not in dispute. 2.3. Due to the said injury, the respondent was not able to attend the work and his duties. 2.4. His absence was, by the petitioner employer, considered as unauthorized absence from 8th October 2000. 2.5. The petitioner Corporation did not stop at that decision i.e. decision of considering the petitioner's absence as unauthorized absence but proceeded to issue charge-sheet to the respondent workman on ground of misconduct of remaining absent without leave. The charge-sheet was issued on 7th December 2001. 2.6. The petitioner Corporation then proceeded to conduct departmental inquiry in connection with the said charge-sheet and upon ex parte conclusion of the inquiry the petitioner Corporation passed order dated 17th May 2003 dismissing the respondent workman from employment. 2.7. Aggrieved by the action of petitioner Corporation of terminating his service, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. 2.8. Before proceeding further, it is important and necessary to mention that when he was terminated, he was about to retire within about two months on reaching superannuation and yet, without having regard to the said aspect, the disciplinary authority had proceeded to pass order dated 17.05.2003 dismissing the respondent workman from service. 3. 2.8. Before proceeding further, it is important and necessary to mention that when he was terminated, he was about to retire within about two months on reaching superannuation and yet, without having regard to the said aspect, the disciplinary authority had proceeded to pass order dated 17.05.2003 dismissing the respondent workman from service. 3. After considering the material on record and the submissions of the contesting parties, the Labour Court found that the penalty inflicted by the petitioner Corporation on the respondent workman for remaining absent after having suffered injury while on duty, was harsh and disproportionate and was not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. 4. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 11-A, the Labour Court considered it appropriate and necessary to set aside the said order of termination. 5. While setting aside the order of penalty of terminating the respondent, the Labour Court has exercised its discretion and not awarded any back-wages for the intervening period to the respondent. 6. As mentioned above, all that the Labour Court has directed is that the respondent should be paid his terminal dues. 7. However, the petitioner Corporation is aggrieved by such award and direction. Hence, present petition. 8. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared and submitted that considering the misconduct, the Labour Court should not have interfered with the penalty order on ground of propriety vis-a-vis the nature of misconduct. He, in alternative, submitted that when the Court considered it necessary to interfere with the said order, appropriate order of penalty for misconduct ought to have been passed. Mr. Vyas also challenged the award on the ground that the petitioner had raised dispute belatedly and therefore the reference should not have been entertained. The petitioner Corporation has also challenged the award on the ground that the Labour Court has not taken into account the fact that the respondent workman remained absent during inquiry also. Any other contention has not been raised. 9. As mentioned hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the respondent workman suffered injury during the course of employment and while he was on duty. 10. It was because of his injury that workman had left the place of employment and thereafter he remained absent. Any other contention has not been raised. 9. As mentioned hereinabove, it is not in dispute that the respondent workman suffered injury during the course of employment and while he was on duty. 10. It was because of his injury that workman had left the place of employment and thereafter he remained absent. The respondent workman was remaining absent pursuant to the injury suffered by him while on duty on 8th October 2000, the Corporation issued a charge-sheet against him treating his absence as misconduct. The departmental proceedings in nature of inquiry were initiated. The respondent workman, as claimed by the petitioner employer, did not attend the proceedings of the departmental inquiry also. 11. The petitioner employer proceeded ex-parte in the departmental inquiry and concluded the inquiry ex-parte. 12. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority passed order imposing penalty and vide order dated 17.05.2003 dismissed the respondent workman from service. 13. At this stage, it is necessary to recall what is observed hereinabove, i.e. that the respondent workman was to retire, on reaching age of superannuation, just within about two months after the date on which his service came to be dismissed by way of penalty order. 14. Before the said unfortunate event when the respondent suffered injury and started remaining absent he had put in and completed service of about 30 years with the petitioner Corporation. 15. However, the said aspect was also not taken into account by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of dismissing the respondent from service. 16. There is nothing on record to indicate, and even before this Court it has not been submitted, that the service record of the respondent workman was tainted and/or he was guilty of misconduct during his past service as well. 17. It also does not appear to be the case of the petitioner Corporation that the respondent workman was in habit of remaining absent without leave. 18. Even in absence of any allegations of such nature i.e. tainted past service record and/or being in habit of remaining absent without leave and even in absence of allegation that he was in habit of conducting himself in indisciplined manner, the disciplinary authority passed the order dismissing the respondent. 19. It is noticed from the record that the documents demonstrating that the petitioner was hospitalized were placed on record. 20. 19. It is noticed from the record that the documents demonstrating that the petitioner was hospitalized were placed on record. 20. The documents demonstrating that the respondent workman had suffered injury were also forwarded to the section head and the medical certificate was also forwarded to the head of the section where respondent was working. 21. The said medical certificate was issued by the Government Hospital. 22. During the pendency of the proceedings, the concerned workman, so as to ensure that the proceedings may not be prolonged admitted the legality, propriety of the inquiry, however, challenged the legality and propriety of the findings of the inquiry officer and the quantum of punishment. 23. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent workman tendered an application/Pursish declaring that he does not pray for and he does not insist for payment of back-wages and he would forgo back-wages and requested the Labour Court to exercise discretion under Section 11-A of the Act. At this stage also the petitioner Corporation did not approach the Court with any positive response. 24. Ultimately, upon conclusion in the proceedings, and on considering the fact that before the date when alleged misconduct of absence commenced the respondent workman had put in service of 30 years with the petitioner Corporation, the Labour Court considered it appropriate to exercise powers under Section 11-A and to set aside the order of dismissal. 25. At this stage, it is necessary to recall that the respondent workman, who otherwise also was to retire, upon reaching age of superannuation within about 2 to 3 months and that therefore the issue of awarding reinstatement was no more pending consideration before the Labour Court and there was no scope for the Labour Court to pass such order. 26. The Labour Court has, in that view of the matter, not passed any order directing reinstatement. 27. Furthermore, the Labour Court has also not awarded any back-wages for the intervening period. 28. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material which was before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner merely to pay the terminal dues. 27. Furthermore, the Labour Court has also not awarded any back-wages for the intervening period. 28. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material which was before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner merely to pay the terminal dues. When, in background of such facts and circumstances the learned Labour Court considered the order of dismissal from service as harsh and disproportionate to the nature of misconduct, any fault cannot be found with such decision, more particularly, when the said decision is not followed by any direction to pay back-wages for the intervening period. 29. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Corporation has not conducted any proceedings for forfeiting gratuity. 30. Therefore, any question of non-payment of gratuity does not arise. 31. Same will be the case so far as P.F. is concerned. Likewise, any order denying pension, if available, has also not been passed after following prescribed procedure against the respondent workman. 32. In that view of the matter when the Labour Court has merely asked the petitioner employer to pay all terminal dues, there is no reason or justification to hold such direction as arbitrary or contrary to material on record or perverse. 33. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any fact and any circumstance which could convince this Court to take any different view in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and to hold that the decision of the Labour Court is arbitrary, perverse and unsustainable. The petition, therefore, fails and deserves to be rejected. Accordingly the petition is rejected. Petition rejected.