Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash award, dated 20-08-1993 in ID.No.229 of 1992 on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. The petitioner joined as Driver in the Transport wing of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short ‘the TTD’) in the year 1970. The Transport wing of the TTD was taken over by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in the year 1975. Accordingly, the petitioner’s services stood transferred to the Corporation. The petitioner absented himself for his duties from 17-02-1985. On the petitioner approaching the Corporation, the period of his unauthorised absence from 17-02-1985 to 07-07-1985 was regularised by sanctioning leave for that period. Even though the petitioner was permitted to join duty on 08-07-1985, from 09-07-1985 to 20-10-1985, he remained absent by producing a medical certificate from a private medical practitioner and again, he remained absent from 21-10-1985. Respondent No.2 vide his letter, dated 29-11-1985, summoned the petitioner for subjecting him to medical examination by the Chief Medical Officer at Tarnaka. However, the petitioner failed to attend the office. As the petitioner remained absent continuously without any intimation, a charge sheet was issued to him on 22-01-1986 with the following charges: “i. For having refused to acknowledge the registered post sent which was intentionally refused by him, constitutes to misconduct under AP CCA Regulations. ii. For having reported sick from 09-07-1985 to till date without valid reasons and for onward direction to Chief Medical Officer, Hyderabad to assess his fitness, have been refused to appear this office constitutes misconduct under AP Leave Rules 4 (1).” As the petitioner failed to submit any explanation, the disciplinary authority ordered a detailed enquiry. The petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on the basis of the material available on record on 15-05-1986 holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice, dated 30-05-1986, to the petitioner proposing the punishment of his removal from service. Even though the notice was sent to the petitioner’s residential address, it was returned unserved with the endorsement that the party was not residing in the said address. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice, dated 30-05-1986, to the petitioner proposing the punishment of his removal from service. Even though the notice was sent to the petitioner’s residential address, it was returned unserved with the endorsement that the party was not residing in the said address. The show cause notice was displayed in the notice board of the office and thereafter, a final order of petitioner’s removal from service was passed on 26-06-1986. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority by Order, dated 09-02-1990, and the review petition was also dismissed on 14-05-1990. Thereafter, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Anantapur, which has registered the same as ID.No.229 of 1992. The Labour Court vide its award, dated 20-08-1993, while holding that both the charges were held proved against the petitioner, however, exercised its discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), and reinstated the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without backwages and other monitory benefits. The Labour Court has substituted the punishment of removal with that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment substituted by the labour Court and denial of backwages and other monitory benefits, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. I have heard Mr.P.Sudheer Rao, learned Counsel, representing Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. There is no representation for the respondents. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court would show that it has given a categorical finding that both the charges stood proved. But, taking the view that the charges are not of serious nature and an ex parte enquiry was held, the Labour Court has taken a lenient view and substituted the penalty and denied the petitioner of backwages and other monitory benefits. Since the Corporation has not challenged the award of the Labour Court, it may not be appropriate for this Court to render conclusive findings on the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court to the extent they went against the Corporation. I cannot, but, refrain from observing that the approach of the Labour Court in holding that the charges are not of serious nature is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I cannot, but, refrain from observing that the approach of the Labour Court in holding that the charges are not of serious nature is thoroughly unsatisfactory. This is a case where the petitioner unauthorisedly absented himself even after he was given a chance by regularising his unauthorised absence from 17-02-1985 to 07-07-1985. He failed to put forth any convincing explanation for his subsequent unauthorised absence from 21-10-1985. Not only that the petitioner failed to turn up for his duties, he has shown utter lack of responsibility and accountability by staying away from the departmental enquiry by obviously managing to return the notices sent through registered post to his address with the endorsement that the addressee is not available. This Court views the petitioner’s conduct as unbecoming of an employee of a public utility corporation. Surprisingly, the Labour Court has taken this conduct of the petitioner in a very light hearted manner and showed undue lenience in his favour by ordering his reinstatement with a light penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect and with continuity of service but without backwages and other monitory benefits during the period of his absence. The petitioner should thank his stars for the lenience shown by the Labour Court and the ‘generosity’ of the Corporation in not questioning the award. His fortunes would have, perhaps, turned turtle, if the Corporation has questioned the award of the Labour Court. Even though this Court is thoroughly dissatisfied with the award of the Labour Court in interfering with the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Corporation, as this award has not been questioned by the Corporation, it has no option other than confirming the award. I do not find any reason, whatsoever, to hold that the insignificant punishment imposed by the Labour Court by way of substitution for the penalty of removal from service, in exercise of its discretion under Section 11-A of the Act, calls for any interference by this Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.