Judgment R.M. Chhaya, J.—By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’ for the sake of brevity), has challenged legality and validity of judgment and award dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No. 783 of 1998 whereby, order dated 10.10.1995 was quashed and set aside by which, the respondent-workman was ordered to be placed in the original pay scale of ‘Art-C Mechanic’ for a period of five years. 2. The facts which can be culled out from the record of the petition are summarised as under. 2.1. The respondent-workman was appointed as Art-C-Mechanic in Kheda Depot of the petitioner-Corporation at Nadiad after following due process of recruitment. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that the respondent-workman remained absent on his duty from 03.08.1995 to 11.09.1995 without prior intimation or report of leave. It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that by communication dated 19.08.1995, the respondent was asked to resume his duty immediately. However, in spite of such an intimation having been given by the petitioner-Corporation, respondent-workman did not resume to his duties. Considering the illegal absentism and misconduct of the respondent-workman, show cause notice No. 2764 in Default Case No. 305 of 1995 dated 14.09.1995 was issued. It appears from the record that the respondent-workman replied the said show cause notice vide reply dated 21.09.1995. Upon considering the said reply, charge-sheet came to be issued on 05.09.1995 and, even after affording personal hearing to the respondent-workman, he did not remain present in the departmental inquiry. It is a matter of record that after completion of the departmental inquiry, on 10.10.1995, the petitioner-Corporation passed an order of inflicting punishment and placed the respondent-workman in the original pay scale of Art-C-Mechanic for a period of 5 years. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.10.1995, the respondent-workman raised dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Vadodara, who, in turn, referred the same to the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad which came to be registered as Reference (ITN) No. 783 of 1998. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to quash and set aside the order of punishment dated 10.10.1995. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation and Mr. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to quash and set aside the order of punishment dated 10.10.1995. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation and Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. 4. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel relying upon order dated 10.10.1995, submitted that in spite of giving repeated opportunities, the respondent-workman did not remain present in the departmental inquiry. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel submitted that the respondent-workman admittedly preferred to remain on leave unauthorizedly from 03.08.1995 to 11.09.1995 which is clearly established by the petitioner-Corporation in the said inquiry. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel submitted that, in fact, the respondent-workman has not produced any evidence to rebut the fact that the respondent has remained on leave without any prior permission and/or intimation to the higher authorities and, therefore, the misconduct alleged in the show cause notice stands proved beyond any doubt. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are without any basis and the Tribunal has committed ex-facie error apparent on the face of the record in accepting the reference. Mr. Desai, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned Counsel for the respondent-workman supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel relying upon the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, submitted that, in fact, the petitioner-Corporation has not properly considered the reply given by the respondent. Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel submitted that the respondent has not remained present on duty only because of serious illness of his daughter. Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel relying upon the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court, submitted that the respondent had applied for leave by sending a letter by R.P.A.D. Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel further submitted that even the Tribunal has committed no error, much less any error of law, apparent on the face of the record, which requires interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rathod, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Rathod, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award as well as the other documents on record, it clearly transpires that vide communication dated 19.08.1995, the petitioner-Corporation sent intimation to the respondent-workman, which is received by the respondent-workman, asking him to report to duties within 3 days. It appears from the record that in spite of giving opportunities, except reply dated 21.09.1995, the respondent has not co-operated in the inquiry. It is also noteworthy that the respondent has not challenged the legality and validity of the inquiry conducted by the petitioner-Corporation. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the respondent has been able to prove that he did apply for the leave and that the absentism of the respondent was not unauthorised is erroneous. However, considering the fact that the daughter of the respondent was suffering from serious ailment, which is also communicated by the respondent in reply to the show cause notice, the punishment imposed by the petitioner vide order of punishment dated 10.10.1995 is disproportionate. However, at the same time, the respondent has committed misconduct which has resulted into administrative and management difficulties. As far as the petitioner-Corporation is concerned, as the respondent was occupying an important position of Art-C-Mechanic, he has not been able to prove that he had sent report of grant of leave by R.P.A.D. Still however, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that it is the responsibility of the petitioner-Corporation to sanction or not to sanction the leave report. Hence, it appears that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of record and hence, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified. 7. Considering the fact that the absentism of the respondent was unauthorised and that the petitioner-Corporation has been able to prove the same, interest of justice would be served, if the order of punishment dated 10.10.1995 placing the respondent-workman in the original pay scale of Art-C-Mechanic for 5 years, be substituted by placing the respondent-workman on the original pay scale of Art-C-Mechanic for one year. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and award dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No. 783 of 1998 also deserves to be modified to that extent. 8. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Judgment and award dated 20.11.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad in Reference (ITN) No. 783 of 1998 is hereby modified to the extent that the respondent-workman shall be placed in original pay scale of Art-C-Mechanic for a period of one year. Rest of the part of the impugned award is confirmed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. P P P P P