JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. The captioned two petitions are, in substance and in effect, cross petitions. The original claimant i.e. workman and original opponent - employer have challenged same award dated 30.11.2006 passed by learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCIDAT) No. 55 of 2006 (Old Reference No. (LCA) No. 1463 of 2003) whereby learned Labour Court directed the employer to pay 20% backwages for the period from 16.11.1996 to 30.4.2006 (when the claimant attained age of superannuation). 2. So far as original claimant i.e. workman is concerned, he has challenged award so as to claim balance 80% backwages which are denied by the learned Labour Court whereas the employer corporation has challenged same award so far as the findings and conclusions by Labour Court with reference to disciplinary action against the claimant are concerned and also against the direction to pay 20% backwages for abovementioned period. 2.1 In view of the fact that captioned petitions are cross petitions, the parties to these proceedings are, for sake of convenience, described as the claimant and corporation. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocates that the claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the corporation illegally terminated his service. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court. 3.1 The claimant filed his statement of claim before learned Labour Court wherein he alleged that he was working as Driver since 1980 with the corporation and he worked continuously and regularly. He further alleged that somewhere in November 1996 his health was not keeping well and on account of his ill-health he was not able to attend duty, however, the corporation ignored the fact and his circumstances and issued show-cause-notice which was followed by chargesheet and thereafter the corporation conducted domestic inquiry and terminated his service by order dated 16.11.1996. The claimant alleged that without having regard to fact that he did not attend the duty and/or proceeding of domestic enquiry because of his ill-health and that he had submitted medical certificate which supported his case, the corporation disregarded said explanation and arbitrarily terminated his service. With the said allegation the claimant demanded reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 3.2 The corporation opposed the reference. With the said allegation the claimant demanded reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 3.2 The corporation opposed the reference. In its written statement/reply the corporation contended that the claimant's duty was fixed at nightshift on 9.12.1995 at Viramgam, Hadala Kharaghoda however, claimant did not report for duty and remained absent from duty without any intimation which resulted in administrative difficulties as well as inconvenience to the passengers. The corporation also contended that thereafter i.e. from 9.12.1995 until 26.12.1995 the claimant did not report for duty and he also did not forward any intimation or application for leave or did not intimate reason for his absence and that therefore, Notice dated 26.12.1995 was forwarded to the claimant. It was also claimed that despite said notice dated 26.12.1995 the claimant neither reported for duty nor informed any reason about his absence and also did not inform the corporation as to when would he resume duty. Since any explanation did not come forth from the claimant and he continued to remain absent from duty, a chargesheet dated 18.7.1996 was issued. The corporation contended that the claimant neither replied the notice/chargesheet nor he bothered to remain present before enquiry officer. The corporation also contended that the allegation and charge against claimant came to be proved during domestic inquiry and therefore order dismissing the claimant from service came to be passed by the competent authority on 16.11.1996. The corporation contended that in view of the facts and circumstances on account of which the claimant's service came to be terminated there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision of the corporation and it is the claimant who conducted himself in irresponsible manner and committed serious misconduct by remaining continuously absent from 9.12.1995 without any intimation and without any information about reasons for his continuous absent. The corporation emphasized before learned Labour Court that from the period he remained absent until the date on which the order dismissing his service came to be passed the claimant had not forwarded any explanation about his absence and/or any application seeking leave and/or even medical certificate. With such submissions the corporation supported and justified its action. 3.3 When the parties completed their pleadings learned Labour Court received evidence from both sides and upon hearing rival submissions learned Labour Court passed impugned award. 4. Mr. With such submissions the corporation supported and justified its action. 3.3 When the parties completed their pleadings learned Labour Court received evidence from both sides and upon hearing rival submissions learned Labour Court passed impugned award. 4. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the claimant assailed the order and submitted that when the learned Labour Court reached to the finding that the termination of service of the claimant was illegal and arbitrary then the learned Labour Court ought to have awarded full backwages. According to the claimant learned Labour Court committed error while granting only 20% backwages and by denying balance 80% backwages. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the claimant submitted that the chargesheet was not duly served to the claimant and that therefore any action on strength of the chargesheet could not have been taken by the corporation. He contended that in light of the fact that the chargesheet was not duly served to the claimant the inquiry officer could not have proceeded with the inquiry and disciplinary authority could not have taken into account such enquiry proceedings and the said authority could not and ought not have passed order dismissing service of the claimant. He submitted that the proceedings and the action based on the proceedings pursuant to chargesheet are defective and consequentially the claimant is entitled for full backwages. He further submitted that after his health improved and he was able to attend the service the claimant had approached corporation with medical certificate however, corporation disregarded the certificate and arbitrarily terminated his service. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the claimant further submitted that the claimant's health showed improvement after November 1996 and that therefore he had reported for duty on 19.11.1996 with the Medical Certificate. He also submitted that the medical certificate was issued by the Community Health Centre and that therefore there was no justification to ignore or disbelieve the certificate. 5. Ms. Neha M. Kayastha, learned advocate for Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate for the corporation reiterated factual details mentioned in the written statement and submitted that the service of the claimant is terminated for serious misconduct of remaining absent from duty without prior permission and also without any intimation and also in view of the fact that during entire tenure of unauthorized absence the claimant never bothered or cared to inform the corporation about reason on account of which the claimant was not reporting for duty. She submitted that before dismissing the claimant from service, the corporation had issued notice to the claimant and since notice was not responded by the claimant, chargesheet was issued and domestic enquiry was conducted and the authority passed the order after following proper procedure and after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing and defence to the claimant. However, learned Labour Court failed to appreciate said fact and committed error in holding that the corporation illegally terminated service of the claimant. Leaned advocate for the corporation submitted that the findings recorded by learned Labour Court are perverse and the award is contrary to evidence and unreasonable and therefore same may be set aside. 6. I have considered rival submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties and I have also considered material available on record. I have also considered impugned award. 7. The fact that the claimant remained absent from duty for unreasonably long period i.e. almost one year from 9.11.1995 is not in dispute. 7.1 It is also not in dispute that according to assignment of duty the claimant was required to report for duty during nightshift on 9.11.1995 but he unauthorizedly and without intimation did not report for duty. 7.2 It is also not in dispute that not only without any prior intimation or even subsequent intimation the claimant did not attend his duty on 9.11.1995 and he unauthorizedly remained absent from duty on the said date but he also did not care to submit any application the next day. 7.3 It is also not in dispute that even subsequently he did not even submit any explanation as to why he was not attending duty. 7.4 Instead he continued to remain absent from duty without permission as well as without intimation and without offering any explanation or reason for almost one year and during the period did not offer any explanation for his unauthorized, long and continuous absence. 7.5 It is also not in dispute that for such conduct the corporation had initially issued notice to which there was no reply. Then the corporation issued chargesheet. 8. On this count it is relevant to mention that the learned advocate for the claimant contended that the chargesheet was not duly served to the claimant. 8.1 It appears that even learned Labour Court has proceeded on the assumption and on the premise that the chargesheet was not served to the claimant. Then the corporation issued chargesheet. 8. On this count it is relevant to mention that the learned advocate for the claimant contended that the chargesheet was not duly served to the claimant. 8.1 It appears that even learned Labour Court has proceeded on the assumption and on the premise that the chargesheet was not served to the claimant. 8.2 However, from the record, rather from the award itself is noticed that actually the claimant had refused service of chargesheet which was forwarded at his residential address by Registered Post (since claimant was not reporting for duty and remained absent from duty during said period). 8.3 The description of the documents by the learned Labour Court in the award (document at serial No. 1, serial No. 7, serial No. 11 and serial No. 14) demonstrate that the notices/chargesheet, order etc. which were forwarded to the claimant under Registered Post and/or UPC were refused by the claimant. 8.4 In this view of the matter, the claimant's allegation that chargesheet or notice were not served to him and therefore domestic inquiry was without jurisdiction and consequently dismissal order is also illegal, without authority and arbitrary, cannot be sustained. 9. Before proceeding further it is relevant to mention at this stage that the claimant before learned Labour, admitted at the outset, legality and propriety of the enquiry. By submitting purshis the claimant declared that the claimant voluntarily declared that he does not challenge the legality and propriety of the enquiry and he accepts and admits that there is no error and defect in conducting domestic enquiry. Of course it is true that the claimant had reserved and kept alive objection against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, however the fact remains that the proceedings of the enquiry were not challenged by the claimant. 9.1 Therefore in view of the declaration admitting the proceedings of enquiry right from initial stage until date on which the enquiry officer submitted his report, now the contention on ground of alleged non-service of notice or chargesheet cannot be entertained or sustained. 9.2 The said allegation and contention runs contrary to the claimant's purshis admitting the legality and propriety of the enquiry proceedings. 9.3 Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the material placed on record before the learned corporation demonstrated that it was the claimant who refused service of the notice/chargesheet, the said contention cannot be sustained. 9.2 The said allegation and contention runs contrary to the claimant's purshis admitting the legality and propriety of the enquiry proceedings. 9.3 Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the material placed on record before the learned corporation demonstrated that it was the claimant who refused service of the notice/chargesheet, the said contention cannot be sustained. 9.4 Consequently the claimant's challenge against domestic enquiry and dismissal order on the ground that the chargesheet was not served is, for abovementioned reasons, hereby rejected. 10. At this stage it is relevant to also mention and note that before instituting the reference case the claimant had filed complaint against corporation's decision of terminating his service however, learned Tribunal after examining facts of the case rejected the complaint filed by the claimant. 10.1 It was after rejection of the complaint that the claimant filed reference case wherein impugned award came to be passed. 11. Having rejected abovementioned allegation and contention of the claimant, now, other contentions raised by the claimant may be examined. 12. The chargesheet issued to the claimant is available on the record of the petition. In the chargesheet dated 18.7.1996 the corporation specifically alleged that the claimant unauthorizedly remained absent at the time when he was required to report for duty during nightshift at Viramgam, Hadala. In the chargesheet corporation also mentioned that even after notice dated 26.12.1995 he did not report for duty or did not forward any intimation or explanation. 12.1 It is pertinent that the claimant did not submit any reply or explanation in response to the chargesheet. It is also pertinent that during entire proceedings of domestic enquiry the claimant did not remain present before Enquiry Officer. 12.2 In present case below mentioned aspects are required to be kept in focus:- "(a) The claimant was assigned night duty however the claimant unauthorizedly and without any intimation did not report for duty which resulted into administrative problems (b) After 9.11.1995 the claimant continuously and unauthorizedly absent from duty and he did not give any intimation about his absence nor did he submit any explanation with regard to his absence and/or he did not convey any reason for his absence. (c) The claimant also did not submit any application seeking leave. (d) The claimant continuously and unauthorizedly remained absent from duty for almost 12 months i.e. from 9.11.1995 to 1.11.1996. (c) The claimant also did not submit any application seeking leave. (d) The claimant continuously and unauthorizedly remained absent from duty for almost 12 months i.e. from 9.11.1995 to 1.11.1996. (e) During said period of 12 months the claimant never submitted any medical certificate and/or never offered and explanation about his absence and/or never submitted any application for leave and/or never conveyed reason on account of which he was not attending duty and/or never informed the corporation that when he would resume the duty. (f) Thus, during entire period of almost 12 months the claimant conducted himself in absolutely irresponsible manner by not giving any intimation about his unauthorized absence and he abstained from duty for almost 12 months. (g) The corporation issued notice and thereafter issued chargesheet, however the claimant refused the notice chargesheet and did not attend domestic enquiry as well. (h) Even during proceedings of the domestic enquiry he did not offer any explanation with regard to his unauthorized absence. Thus, the period from 9.12.1995 to 8.11.1996 is undisputed period of unauthorized absence by the claimant." 13. Further, complaint filed by the claimant came to be dismissed by learned Labour Court/Tribunal. 14. Learned advocate for the claimant contended that on 9.11.1996 the claimant had reported for duty alongwith the medical certificate however, the corporation did not take into consideration the medical certificate and arbitrarily terminated his service, however when the details with regard to so called certificate is taken into account it comes out that the certificate merely mentioned that the claimant suffered from back pain and therefore he was unable to report for duty. By any stretch of imagination the said certificate, which was allegedly issued by the Community Health Centre, is not such which would inspire confidence. Further, the alleged illness, even according to the details in the certificate, was not such that he could not have attended the inquiry or that he could not have gone to the office to offer his explanation and submit application for leave or that he could not have forwarded such application at least by post or through some relative. He simply and consciously and knowingly ignored the notice, chargesheet and above all his own responsibility and duty and obligation. 14.1 Unfortunately, learned Labour Court mechanically relied on the claimant's baseless excuse and the said certificate. He simply and consciously and knowingly ignored the notice, chargesheet and above all his own responsibility and duty and obligation. 14.1 Unfortunately, learned Labour Court mechanically relied on the claimant's baseless excuse and the said certificate. If at all claimant was actually not keeping good health and due to ill-health, he could have atleast submitted leave application, he could have periodically/regularly forwarded medical certificate seeking extension of leave or atleast he could have submitted an application intimating reason on account of which he was unable to attend the duty. However undisputedly during the said entire period of almost 12 months claimant never bothered to submit single application or he did not care to periodically submit any certificate stating that he was unable to attend the duty on account of ill-health. In this view of the matter, the allegation and/or contention about alleged non-service of chargesheet even otherwise does not deserve to be entertained. 15. Having regard to abovementioned facts it emerges that the claimant conducted himself in irresponsible manner which amount to misconduct. 15.1 On 9.11.1996 when the claimant submitted leave report (i.e. for almost 12 months) the competent authority rejected the said report with the specific order that leave report is rejected. The said decision by the authority, by any stretch of imagination or by most lenient standard, cannot be considered arbitrary or unjust. 16. Despite such facts and circumstances learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to exercise power under Section 11-A of the Act. 16.1 Actually in the facts of the case it is abundantly clear that there was no reason or justification to exercise power under Section 11-A of the Act in present case. 16.2 It is absolutely misplaced sympathy. The facts and material available on record before learned Labour Court conclusively demonstrated that the claimant committed serious misconduct and he conducted himself in irresponsible manner by remaining absent from duty for almost 1 years without any intimation, without any leave and without conveying any reason on account of which he was unable to attend the duty. By any standard such irresponsible conduct cannot be countenanced. By any standard such irresponsible conduct cannot be countenanced. 16.3 From the award it clearly emerges that even learned Labour Court has recorded, below the heading "reasons" that on examination of the record, it is found that the corporation had granted sufficient opportunity to the claimant to appear before the Enquiry Officer during domestic enquiry and to conduct his case/defence, however, it was the claimant who did not remain present before the enquiry officer. Learned Labour Court has specifically recorded that vide communications dated 3.8.1996, 10.8.1996 and 18.9.1996 the claimant was informed to remain present however despite such intimation the claimant did not remain present before the enquiry officer. 16.4 Further it is also relevant and pertinent to mention that in the same paragraph below heading "reason" learned Labour Court has also specifically recorded that the conclusion recorded by the enquiry officer are supported by reason and evidence on record of the domestic enquiry and that therefore the claimant's allegation against finding of enquiry officer cannot be sustained. 16.5 Thus, even according to learned Labour Court the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are just, correct, legal and proper. On the other hand, the claimant himself admitted legality of the inquiry. 17. After recoding such conclusion learned Labour Court proceeded to examine the issue as to whether the action of dismissing the claimant was justified in light of the facts of the case or not and in that regard the learned Labour Court exercised power under Section 11-A of the Act. On this count, learned Court appears to have been influenced by undue sympathy and it has grasped one or other reason whichever was handy and in the process Court ignored that the claimant himself admitted that inquiry was conducted in legal and fair manner and he did not challenge the legality of inquiry and the Court found that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are just, correct, legal and proper. Thus, there was no justification to exercise power under Section 11-A of the Act. 18. Thus, there was no justification to exercise power under Section 11-A of the Act. 18. The facts mentioned hereinabove and the conduct of the claimant who remained unauthorizedly absent from almost 12 months and that too without any intimation and the fact that during said entire period of 12 months claimant never submitted any application seeking leave and/or did not submit any leave certificate during said interregnum, convinces the Court to hold that at the time when the claimant reported for duty on 9.11.1996 i.e after almost 12 months he, as an afterthought and as an excuse, offered explanation of long leave (which he could have done during period of 12 months, if at all he was actually unable to attend the duty on account of ill-health). 19. In this background coupled with the fact that the corporation had conducted legal and fair enquiry, there was no justification for the learned Labour Court to interfere with the action of the corporation and/or to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority. When it was established before learned Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was conducted in legal and fair manner and that reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing and defence was granted to the claimant and that he did not avail said opportunity and that misconduct is established and when learned Labour Court itself has recorded that the finding by Enquiry Officer are based on material available on record and supported by the reasons as well as evidence, there was no justification for learned Labour Court to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. There is no justification for awarding 20% backwages. It would amount to reward for indiscipline, misconduct and irresponsible conduct. 19.1 In the result petition filed by the corporation should succeed and the petition filed by the claimant must fail. 20. Therefore following order is passed:- "The petition being Special Civil Application No. 23334 of 2007 filed by the claimant is hereby dismissed. The petition being Special Civil Application No. 27733 of 2007 filed by the corporation is hereby accepted and allowed. 20. Therefore following order is passed:- "The petition being Special Civil Application No. 23334 of 2007 filed by the claimant is hereby dismissed. The petition being Special Civil Application No. 27733 of 2007 filed by the corporation is hereby accepted and allowed. The award passed by the learned Labour Court directing the corporation to pay 20% backwages from the date of termination until the date on which the claimant attained age of superannuation i.e. from 16.11.1996 to 30.4.2006 is hereby set aside and Rule issued in Special Civil Application No. 27733 of 2007 is made absolute whereas Rule issued in Special Civil Application No. 23334 of 2007 is discharged." Orders accordingly. Petition Allowed.