JUDGMENT : K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. 1. The workman in this appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.06.2016 dismissing W.P. (C) No. 10046 of 2009. The writ petition was filed by the workman challenging Ext.P2 award of the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D. No. 131 of 1990. The appellant approached the Labour Court challenging his discharge from service. The workman was discharged from service on the ground that he had been continuously absent on medical grounds for more than six months and had also been availing the disability benefit under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, the Management invoked Rule 98 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. The relevant regulation entitles the Management to discharge the employee or to reduce him after due notice, provided he has been in receipt of disablement benefit for temporary disablement for a continuous period of six months or more. The workman contended that, his discharge was illegal and liable to be interfered with and set aside. The Management placed reliance on the standing orders applicable to the establishment to contend that the workman was a habitual absentee. The Labour Court considered the contentions of the respective parties, let in evidence and by Ext.P2 award, found that the discharge of the workman was illegal and was liable to be set aside. Therefore, he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service. However, the Labour Court took note of the fact that, though a show cause notice had been served on him prior to his discharge, he had failed to submit any explanation to the same. It has further been noticed that he was suffering from 15% disability as evident from the document marked as Ext.W5 but that, he had not produced any document to show that he was fit to be admitted to duty after the expiry of his leave on 25.02.1990. It has also been found from the document marked as Ext.M15 that, the workman was not in the habit of attending work on all working days even prior to the accident on 02.12.1988, consequent to which, he had availed medical leave. The Labour Court has taken note of the fact that, the workman had worked only for 70 days in 1984, 45½ days in 1985, 35 days in 1986 and 120½ days in 1987. The Labour Court has taken note of the fact that, the workman had worked only for 70 days in 1984, 45½ days in 1985, 35 days in 1986 and 120½ days in 1987. Taking into account all the above circumstances, the Labour Court has ordered that, the appellant workman would be entitled only to claim 20% of his back wages. Ext.P2 award was challenged by the appellant to the extent it denied to him 80% of the back wages. However, the learned Single Judge has, after considering the contentions of the appellant, declined to interfere with Ext.P2 award. 2. According to Advocate Sri. Sebastian Paul, who appears for the appellant, since the discharge of the workman has been found to be bad, it was only appropriate that, he was reinstated with full back wages. Denial of back wages to the workman to the extent of 80% according to the learned counsel, was unjust and was therefore liable to be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the workman is a person who is suffering from disability. For the said reason also it is contended that it is necessary to grant full back wages to the appellant. He, therefore, seeks interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. Advocate Sri. S. Sujin appears for the second respondent. 4. Heard. A perusal of Ext.P2 award shows that, the Labour Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case, elaborately. The Labour Court has found in the light of the evidence adduced in the case that, the previous conduct of the workman even prior to the date of accident, pursuant to which he had proceeded on leave, was to absent himself from work, continuously. Though he was issued with a show cause notice, his conduct in not even submitting an explanation to the same has also been taken note of by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has found that the appellant had failed to produce any document showing that he was fit to join duty, on the expiry of his leave on 25.02.1990. It was taking into account all the above circumstances and the conduct of the appellant prior to the accident also, that the Labour Court has limited back wages of the workman to 20%. It was taking into account all the above circumstances and the conduct of the appellant prior to the accident also, that the Labour Court has limited back wages of the workman to 20%. The learned Single Judge has also on an appreciation of the said circumstances, found no grounds to interfere with Ext.P2. We also do not find any grounds to interfere with the said finding in the light of the circumstances, taken note of by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge. The discharge of the workman has been found to be bad. He has, therefore, been directed to be reinstated with continuity in service. It is only in respect of the back wages that the same has been limited to 20%. We find that, the said action is supported by the evidence in the case as well as the attendant circumstances. We therefore find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Writ Appeal is, accordingly dismissed.