Judgment :- Ghulam Mohammed, J. This writ appeal is preferred by the Management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, challenging the correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.11205 of 1993 instituted by it, questioning the validity of the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in rejecting M.P.No.115 of 1987 moved by it in I.D.No.56 of 1984. 2. Miscellaneous Petition No.115 of 1987 was moved by the Management of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approving the action taken in dismissing the respondent/workman from service with effect from 14.05.1987. The relevant facts are that, the second respondent/workman was working as a coal cutter and he has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry whereat, he was found guilty of the misconduct falling under Rule 16(4) of the Companies Standing Orders. Hence, he has been inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 14.05.1984. The case of the respondent/workman was that, a grossly disproportionate punishment was sought to be imposed against him as an act of victimization and unfair labour practice as he was elected as a Joint Secretary of the Trade Union and he was found actively involved in this Trade Union activity and was found espousing the causes of fellow workmen and hence, he was viewed with disfavour by the Management of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. It was therefore contended by the workman that, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service is only for victimizing him and to send a message across for the others not to get involved actively in Trade Union activities. 3. The charge-sheet dated 22.03.1985 drawn against the second respondent/workman reads as under: “You remained absent on the following days without leave or sufficient cause.” January 1984 : 1 to 5, 13, 20 February, 1984 - March, 1984 13 April, 1984 16 to 19, 26 May, 1984 2,3,6,7,9,11,13,17,21,22,23,27 to 31 June, 1984 1 to 9, 27,28 July, 1984 1,15,17,19,22 to 30 August, 1984 1 to 5, 7,8,10 to 16, 28, 29 and 30 September, 1984 16 to 21, 24 to 30 October, 1984 All absent November, 1984 1 to 4, 11, 13, 17, 18 December, 1984 All absents January, 1985 13, 31 February, 1985 6 to 11 The above act of yours amounts to misconduct under Caompany’s Standing Orders 16 (4).” 4. At the domestic enquiry, the Management examined one Sri M. Ramesh Chander, Clerk and the workman has examined himself. The record of enquiry disclosed that the second respondent/workman remained absent from duty on all the days set out in the charge-sheet except 06.06.1984. The second respondent/workman has set forth the defense that, due to ill-health and Trade Union work, he was absent on the days noted in the charge-sheet except on 06.06.1984. However, the workman has assured that, he will be far more careful henceforth. 5. The Industrial Tribunal felt that, absence from duty for certain period is not a grave misconduct and particularly when the workman is alleging that, his absence was caused due to his ill-health and Trade Union activities, some leverage should be shown to his cause. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that, the workman has not committed a serious or grave misconduct warranting imposition of the harshest punishment of dismissal from service and hence, dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition No.115 of 1987 moved by the Management. 6. The learned single Judge after considering the entire matter, exercised discretion and held that, the ends of Justice would be met, if the order of the Industrial Tribunal is modified holding that the respondent/workman will be entitled to wages from the date of dismissal till the date on which the orders were passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.115 of 1987 i.e. on 27.05.1993. The learned single Judge has noticed the fact that, the second respondent/workman is continued in service by the Management. 7. Heard Ms. Uma, learned counsel for the appellant. While reiterating the contention, as canvassed before the learned single Judge to find fault with the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in dismissing Miscellaneous Petition No.115 of 1987, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh ( 2004(6) scale 613 ). The Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that, mere making out an application seeking leave either before or after the absence from work does not in any way help the cause of the workman. Inasmuch as, the requirement of the standing orders is that, leave of absence has got to be secured in advance, the conduct of the employees who stays away from work without securing sanction of leave of absence can hardly be justified. Inasmuch as, the requirement of the standing orders is that, leave of absence has got to be secured in advance, the conduct of the employees who stays away from work without securing sanction of leave of absence can hardly be justified. In no unmistakable terms, the Supreme Court has held that, treating the period of absence as leave without pay is not the same as sanction or approving the period of absence. The Supreme Court therefore found fault with the Labour Court in not granting approval for the action taken by the Management of Delhi Transport Corporation. 8. There is hardly any necessity to debate about the misconduct that becomes attributable to the workman for staying away from work without securing the approval for his leave of absence. May be for certain extraordinary reasons and circumstances, the leave of absence can be got secured from the competent authority after it is availed. But, such occasions must be rare, but not be made a routine affair. The absence of a workman, all of a sudden will cause enormous problems for the human resource managers. All the more so, if the industry is a process industry where, workmen report to duties in shifts, the manpower manger cannot find a substitute readily available for deploying him for readily undertaking the job of the employee who was absent. It will not only throw the work schedule out of the gear atleast for a while, but it will also breed indiscipline amongst the work force. We are clearly of the opinion that the Industrial Tribunal and the learned single Judge were clearly in error, in principle, in not according approval to the dismissal of the workman. 9. However, the submission of Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/workman is that, the said workman has been continued in service by the Management without any let or hindrance and in fact, he has been allowed to retire from service in the afternoon of 30.04.2011, as he has attained the age of superannuation by 12.04.2011 and therefore, the order of dismissal dated 13.05.1987 should not be given effect to at this stage. Learned counsel for the second respondent/workman has also placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100 ). Learned counsel for the second respondent/workman has also placed reliance upon the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100 ). K.T. Thomas, J, speaking for the Bench has outlined the contours of exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts in Articles 226 and 227 in the following words: “12. We are greatly disturbed by the insensitivity reflected in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in a case where judicial mind would be tempted to utilize all possible legal measures to impart justice to a man mutilated so outrageously by his cruel destiny. The High Court non-suited him in exercise of a supervisory and extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution. Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. {vide State of Uttar Pradesh vs. District Judge, Unnao and ors. ( AIR 1984 SC 1401 )}. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the byproduct of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law.” 10. As was noticed by us, the second respondent/workman was absent from work on a number of days mentioned in the charge-sheet excepting one day. The justification offered by the workman for his absence from duty was due to ill-health and Trade Union activities. No material has been brought out relating to the causative factors of his ill-health. While, Trade Union activity can be carried on by workmen but, at the same time, it cannot be at the cost and inconvenience of the Management. In normal circumstances, perhaps we would not have hesitated to correct the error committed by the Industrial Tribunal in rejecting Miscellaneous Petition No.115 of 1987, but however, the Management continued the concerned workman on its rolls till he attained the age of superannuation. In normal circumstances, perhaps we would not have hesitated to correct the error committed by the Industrial Tribunal in rejecting Miscellaneous Petition No.115 of 1987, but however, the Management continued the concerned workman on its rolls till he attained the age of superannuation. For the service rendered by him to the appellant during the said period, he must have been paid for, as well. 11. Nearly 24 year period has lapsed between the date on which order of dismissal was passed against him and he has eventually retired from service on 30.04.2011. We will not be justifying in denying him the benefits for this length of service rendered by a workman. Therefore, we are constrained to note that the ends of Justice would be met if the second respondent/workman’s pay is reduced by two stages for the proven misconduct set out in the charge-sheet dated 22.03.1985. 12. We, therefore, direct the appellant to reduce the last drawn wages by the second respondent/workman for the month of April, 2011 by two stages as a measure of punishment and on that basis, regulate all his terminal benefits. 13. The writ appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated supra, but however without costs.