ORDER : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Petitioner-Corporation is before this Court assailing the award dated 01.03.2014 passed in I.D. No. 47/2012 impugned at Annexure-N to the petition. 2. Respondent while working as Driver in the petitioner-Corporation had remained unauthorisedly absent without sanction of leave. In that view, petitioner-Corporation having proceeded against the respondent and on holding him guilty of the charge in domestic inquiry, had dismissed him from service through the order dated 15.06.2012. Respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same, was before the II Additional Labour Court in a petition filed under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The Labour Court which had registered the dispute in I.D. No. 47/2012, had framed three points for its consideration. Accordingly, the first point relating to the validity or otherwise of the domestic inquiry was considered and was held in the negative. Petitioner herein, however, tendered evidence by examining MW-2 and got marked the documents. The workman had examined himself as WW-1 and relied upon the documents. The Labour Court while arriving at its conclusion has taken note of the documents as marked. Though the fact of respondent having remained absent was taken into consideration by the Labour Court, it was of the view that as per the leave applications which were marked as Exs. W-l & W-2, respondent in fact was not keeping good health during the period from 10.01.2010 to 15.06.2010, and therefore, had justification in remaining absent. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would, however, contend that such conclusion reached by the Labour Court is not justified, in as much as, the leave had not been approved by the employer and such documents which had been relied upon by the workman for the first time ought not to have been relied by the Labour Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent would, however, seek to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent would, however, seek to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court. 6. In a matter of the present nature, when the contention was with regard to the unauthorised absence and in that circumstance when the Labour Court was satisfied that the respondent was unwell during the said period, keeping in view the manner in which the leave had been claimed and in that situation when only the benefit of reinstatement has been granted to the respondent, in my opinion, it would not be necessary to re-assess the evidence nor take into consideration the nature of perversity, if any, in the award. This is for the reason that even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is ultimately accepted, an opportunity to reform was required to be granted when it is not a misconduct involving moral turpitude. 7. That apart, what is also to be kept in view' is. that the respondent had been reinstated into service during the pendency of this petition so as to extract the work and though such reinstatement was subject to the result of this petition, the respondent has admittedly attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, respondent having worked from the date he has been reinstated pursuant to the interim order, he has been paid the salary and in any event, continuity of service is for the purpose of terminal benefits as had been granted by the Labour Court. Therefore, in that circumstance, if the award is confirmed in the manner as has been ordered and is also clarified that back wages as denied would continue till the date on which he was actually reinstated pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, ends of justice would be met. In any event, for the purpose of grant of terminal benefits, continuity of service shall be reckoned and the same shall be disbursed to the respondent, if the same has not vet been disbursed. In terms stated above, petition stands disposed of.