ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. Instant intra-court appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 25.07.2017 partially modifying the award passed by the ld. Labour Court dated 01.09.1997. 2. The respondent-workman indisputably had worked as machine man w.e.f. 10.11.1980 till his dismissal from service vide order dated 06.12.1986 (Annex.26) because of his willful absence from duty w.e.f. 13.11.1986. It was alleged that prior thereto a charge-sheet dated 08.11.1986 was issued and certain documents were placed on record to show that it was served upon him. Since it was case of no enquiry while passing the order of dismissal from service of a permanent employee, no option was left with him but to approach the ld. Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. The reference was made by the Government on 03.05.1988 and in compliance thereof the statement of claim and written statement was filed by the parties and this court would like to record that the application was filed by the appellant-management for establishing the charges levelled against the workman during the course of enquiry to be conducted by the ld. Labour Court and since the permission was granted, the appellant-management tried to prove the guilt which was made to be the basis for passing the order of removal from service dated 06.12.1986 but this fact remained uncontroverted that the reasons assigned for passing the order of his removal from service was that he remained will fully absent from duty w.e.f. 13.11.1986 and the statement which has come on record, as alleged by the appellant and before the ld. Labour Court as well that the charge-sheet dated 08.11.1986 was served upon him and this remains very conspicuous that the charge-sheet dated 08.11.1986 was not the basis for passing of order of his removal from service dated 06.12.1986 and thus, the permission granted by the ld. Labour Court remain confined to the reason for removal from service for which indisputably no charge-sheet was served upon him and in the given facts & circumstances, no reasonable justification came forward for passing the order of removal from service after he rendered six years of service and that too the reason assigned for passing the order of removal dated 06.12.1986 and the ld. Labour Court finally arrived to the conclusion that no reasonable justification has come forward and no evidence has come on record which could support the order of removal from service dated 06.12.1986, in consequence thereof while quashing the order of removal from service dated 06.12.1986 the ld. Labour Court directed the employer (appellant) to reinstate the workman with continuity in service and back wages vide award dated 01.09.1997 (Annex.23). 4. That became the subject matter of challenge before the ld. Single Judge of this court and earlier the award was stayed vide order dated 12.04.2002 but the fact ultimately remains that the workman who was arbitrarily removed from service way back in December, 1986 despite his best efforts could not revert back to service and remained out of employment for all practical purposes. After the matter being heard, the ld. Single Judge of this court, while upholding the reinstatement, as there was a violation of principles of natural justice and no enquiry of the kind being initiated what to say about fairness which is imperative in the departmental enquiry before the action being taken inflicting penalty of removal from service upon the workman dated 06.12.1986, considered it appropriate to award compensation to the workman to the extent of 30% of the back wages. 5. The main thrust of submission of the counsel in assailing the award of the ld. Labour Court and so also the order impugned passed by the ld. Single Judge is that once the permission was granted by the ld. Labour Court to prove the charges levelled against the workman during the course of enquiry to be conducted by the ld. Labour Court and they were able to justify all the allegation levelled in the charge-sheet, the action of the ld. Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the order of removal from service dated 06.12.1986 and against the pleadings on record and that has also not been considered by the ld. Single Judge. 6. The submission made is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that permission was granted by the ld. Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the order of removal from service dated 06.12.1986 and against the pleadings on record and that has also not been considered by the ld. Single Judge. 6. The submission made is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that permission was granted by the ld. Labour Court to the employer to prove the allegation which was the basis for passing of order of removal which, as alleged to be passed because of his will full absence from duty w.e.f. 13.11.1986 and whatever charges as alleged against him in the charge-sheet dated 08.11.1986 certainly were neither the basis nor could be made to be the basis for passing the order of dismissal from service dated 06.12.1986 and when no material has come on record to justify the action of the employer in arbitrarily removing the workman from service vide order dated 06.12.1986, the ld. Labour Court has rightly directed the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity in service and back wages under the award impugned dated 01.09.1997 which was confirmed by the ld. Single Judge of this court under order impugned. At the same time, the ld. Single Judge taking note of long pendency of the matter apart from reinstatement with continuity in service considered it appropriate to award compensation to the workman to the extent of 30% of the back wages. 7. Having heard counsel for the appellant, we find no error being committed by the ld. Labour Court in passing the award impugned dated 01.09.1997 and so also the ld. Single Judge while confirming the award with modification passed by the ld. Labour Court under the order impugned which calls for our interference. 8. Consequently, the instant intra-court appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.