JUDGMENT 1. Writ appeal by the employer -North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the order of dismissal suffered at the hands of the learned single Judge in writ petition No.80238/2010 which was a petition questioning the Award of the Labour Court, Gulbarga dated 25.05.2009 passed in Reference No.61/2006. 2. The reference at the instance of the workman was against the order of dismissal suffered by him at the hands of the Management as a measure of penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings pursuant to a domestic inquiry and on the charge he had remained absent from 12.10.2002 to 25.10.2002 without leave or authorization. 3. The Labour Court as a preliminary finding, found that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper and therefore set aside the proceedings and allowed opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence before the charges. 4. The employee also examined himself as WW.1 and claimed that he had suffered paralytic stroke on the right side of his body and had received treatment in a private Hospital and therefore that was sufficient justification for his remaining absent and the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be sustained etc. 5. The Labour Court, in the circumstances, directed reinstatement of the workman into service by providing alternative job with continuity of service with 40% of back wages from the date of dismissal till he is provided with alternative job within four weeks from the date of the Award. 6. It is against this Award, writ petition had been preferred, but the learned single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the Labour Court was justified in passing the order, more so, as the Labour Court had found that the stand of the Management that he was a chronic absentee and had a past history of eight cases had not been made good. The learned single Judge also found that in view of the provisions of 'The Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation] Act, 1995, the order of the Labour Court did not warrant interference. 7. It is against this order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal. 8. Appearing on behalf of the appellant -Corporation, submission of Sri. 7. It is against this order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal. 8. Appearing on behalf of the appellant -Corporation, submission of Sri. R V Nadagouda, learned counsel is that there was absolutely no material to indicate that the workman had suffered paralytic stroke during the relevant time he had remained absent; that if at all it is a subsequent development and therefore that cannot be a reason for holding that the absence of the workman was justified and points out that the stand of the suffering of paralytic stroke had not been taken before the disciplinary authority nor any material placed either before the disciplinary authority or the labour court to support the same and therefore the Award of the Labour Court and order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable. 9. On the other hand, Sri. Vilas Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-workman who had been put on notice, submits that the workman, in fact, did apply for leave on the same ground, but it had not been granted; that he cannot produce record which is available with the Corporation. 10. Be that as it may, we find that the Labour Court opined the workman had suffered paralytic stroke and whether it was before or after, obviously it was the Labour Court which had the benefit of viewing the workman and was satisfied that he was being disabled and therefore directed reinstatement with 40% back wages. The learned single Judge found it is not a fit case for interference. 11. Exercising appellate jurisdiction under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, we do not find any occasion to interfere in a matter of this nature. Appeal is dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of the main appeal itself, IA No.3/2011 for stay does not survive for consideration and hence, it is dismissed.