JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the award dated 6.1.2009, passed by the Labour Court, Mysore, in I.I.D.No.63/1999 vide Annexure-F. 2. By the impugned award at Annexure-F, the Labour Court, Mysore, has allowed the petition in part and has directed the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service and the petitioner shall be entitled for all retrial benefits except back wages. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are: The petitioner was appointed as Helper 'A' in the year 1978 at Hubli Division. The respondent issued articles of charges alleging unauthorised absence of the petitioner for duty from 8.9.1995 onwards. The petitioner submitted his reply on 8.12.1995 denying the charges. Thereafter, one more charge sheet was issued on 22.5.1996 alleging that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 6.3.1996 onwards. The petitioner submitted his reply on 26.8.1996 denying the charges. The enquiry officer held that the charges are proved and submitted his report on 2.9.1998. The Disciplinary Authority concurring with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer has dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 29.10.1998. The petitioner has raised dispute before the Labour Court in I.I.D.No.63/1999. The Labour Court by its award dated 6.1.2009 has allowed the petition in part and has set aside the order of dismissal and directed the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service and the petitioner shall be entitled to retiral benefits except back wages. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the direction to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner has explained his absence from duty on the ground of ill-health and therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in directing the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. Further he submitted the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in 2006(1) AIR Kar R 613 and also unreported decision of this court in W.P.No.29358/2011 disposed of on 8.8.2011. 6. Further he submitted the punishment awarded is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in 2006(1) AIR Kar R 613 and also unreported decision of this court in W.P.No.29358/2011 disposed of on 8.8.2011. 6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned award does not call for interference. She also submitted that the petitioner has remained absent for duty several times and the Labour Court taking into consideration that the petitioner has put in service of 20 years and he has remained absent for duty several times has directed the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service and therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference. Further she submitted that pursuant to the award, all retrial benefits have been paid to the petitioner and the petitioner after receiving the retrial benefits has approached this court in the year 2012 and therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. She also submitted that the petitioner is out of service since 1998 and therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference. She placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007)8 SCC 656 . 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned award calls for interference? 10. It is relevant to note, the petitioner was working as Helper 'A' in the respondent-Corporation. He has been removed from service for his unauthorised absence. The award shows that the petitioner has remained absent for duty from 8.9.1995 to 17.12.2005 and from 6.3.1996 to 5.9.1996. Apart from this, the petitioner has remained absent for duty nine times earlier. The Labour Court taking into consideration that the petitioner has put in service of 20 years and he has remained absent for duty nine times earlier and the order of dismissal is disproportionate has modified the punishment directing the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service with retrial benefits except back wages. The petitioner has received the monetary benefits and thereafter, has filed this writ petition in the year 2012. It is clearly after thought. The Labour Court has rightly directed the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. The petitioner has received the monetary benefits and thereafter, has filed this writ petition in the year 2012. It is clearly after thought. The Labour Court has rightly directed the respondent to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. It cannot be said to be unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.