ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. It transpires that the respondent was a job trainee and had unauthorisedly remained absent from 10-10-1998 till 6-1-1999 without any valid reason. There is no leave application submitted and no prior permission obtained from the management. In this regard, a report was submitted by the Depot Manager, Bellary to the Divisional Controller and a charge-sheet having been issued, it was indicated that there was an earlier history of unauthorised absence, where he was imposed with a minor penalty. Inspire of receipt of notice, he had not filed any reply and a domestic inquiry followed. The respondent did not choose to cross-examine the management witness nor did he lead any evidence. On a report by the Inquiry Officer that the charges were proved, the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order after taking necessary procedural steps removing him from service. 3. The respondent having raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act for brevity), before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, the Tribunal had set aside the order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the respondent herein with 25% back wages but however held that the respondent was not entitled to salary for the period of absence. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the above circumstances, the Tribunal having taken a lenient view on the footing that the punishment was disproportionate to the act of misconduct is not justified, as the respondent had not chosen to provide any explanation for his long absence, except providing a medical certificate, which was on the face of it, a false document. In that, the said document dated 10-10-1998 had indicated that he was under treatment from 10-10-1998 to 6-1-1999 which is incomprehensible. The said certificate if it was dated 10-10-1998, would not certify that the respondent was under treatment upto 6-1-1999 and therefore it is clearly a got up document which was produced for the purpose of making a false claim that he was ill. The said certificate if it was dated 10-10-1998, would not certify that the respondent was under treatment upto 6-1-1999 and therefore it is clearly a got up document which was produced for the purpose of making a false claim that he was ill. Even if the respondent was ill, it was his duty to inform his employer and seek appropriate permission to remain absent on account of ill health and that never having been done, the production of the certificate was clearly an after thought and a false document on the face of it. 5. It is further pointed out that this Court, in its interim order in the present writ petition, had directed that the respondent be reinstated and he permitted to recommence his duties, but he had failed to report for duty and had continuously remained absent in spite of there being an interim order in his favour. This would compound the fact or rather, the misconduct of the respondent and seeks that the order of removal from service be confirmed. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent makes a weak attempt to justify the order of the Tribunal. 7. Given the above facts and circumstances and the fact that there is no attempt on the part of the respondent to seek appropriate permission to remain absent and to seek leave on account of his ill health, there is no case made out by the respondent for any lenient view. The Tribunal had misplaced its sympathy in directing reinstatement of the respondent. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Tire impugned award of the Tribunal is set aside. The order of removal from service of the present respondent is confirmed.