ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner was working as a Trainee Conductor under the respondent since 1997. He was appointed against a permanent sanctioned post. The petitioner was rendering services as a Trainee Conductor. However, he remained absent for certain period i.e., from 06.04.2008 to 10.12.2008 for a total period of 240 days without any permission and without sanctioning of any leave and even without furnishing any medical certificate to that effect. Treating it as an unauthorized absent from the duty the respondent has initiated the disciplinary proceedings against him and after conducting thorough enquiry the respondent has passed an order on 20.08.2009 removing the name of the petitioner from the concerned Register and virtually dismissed the petitioner from the services. The said order was challenged before the Labour Court in Reference No.23/2012. The Labour Court after considering the contentions of both the parties, answering preliminary Issue No.1 in the negative holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the second party the respondent was not fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court conducted the enquiry by itself by providing opportunity to both the parties. It framed further issues to the following effect ; 1. Whether the misconduct of the first party/claimant is proved ? 2. Whether the second party/respondent is right in deleting the name of the first party from the list of trainees ? Answering these two issues in the affirmative and ultimately Labour Court has also came to the same conclusion as that of the Disciplinary Authority that there was rude misconduct of the claimant therein and affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority after conducting thorough enquiry. 3. During the enquiry conducted by the Labour Court the petitioner examined himself as WW1 and got marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W8 and on the side of the respondent MW.1 Ravikumar was examined and got marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner misconducted himself and absented himself from the duty from 06.04.2008 to 10.12.2008 without any sufficient and genuine reasons. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner misconducted himself and absented himself from the duty from 06.04.2008 to 10.12.2008 without any sufficient and genuine reasons. Though he has takenup the contention that he was suffering from jaundice but he has not produced any material before the Authorities or before the Labour Court for the purposes of considering whether he was actually suffering from such jaundice for such a long period. 4. Even the Labour Court has made an observation that, though the petitioner was allowed to work after 10.12.2008 by permitting him to join the duty on 11.12.2008 and evenafter that he has not regularly worked and he remained absent for further period from January, 2009 up to April, 2009 for a period of 121 days. This particular aspect has also been taken into consideration by the Labour Court narrating that the said 121 days period was condoned by the Authorities accepting the medical certificate given by the petitioner to show that he was suffering from Bilateral Cerebella infarction. In spite of issuing of notice to the claimant as per Ex.M6 the petitioner did not join the duty even afterwards. Therefore, concluded that petitioner has caused damage to the institution by absenting himself for such a long time. Therefore, considering all these conduct of the petitioner on analysis of entire evidence on record the Labour Court has come to such a conclusion. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that though he has not produced any document before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Labour Court but he was actually suffering from jaundice. But nowhere in the petition or before the Labour Court or before the Disciplinary Authority he has stated as to what treatment he has taken from where he has taken the treatment who was the person treated him how long he took the treatment for the purpose of jaundice. It is unimaginable that a person would suffer such a long time by virtue of jaundice particularly for a period of 249 days, therefore, it is not a small absence of the petitioner which was in question but it is a long delay that in my opinion also requires a proper certificate from the competent person who actually treated this man for jaundice. In the absence of any semblance of material to show that for a period of 249 days he suffered jaundice, therefore, he could not rejoin his duties and in the absence of such material there is no mistake committed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Labour Court in coming to the conclusion that the said explanation or the said pleading of the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority and the Labour Court is bereft of any evidence or bereft of any materials on record. 6. An attempt is made before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner by producing a Medical certificate alleged to had been issued by one Dr.J.G.Yalagachin to show that petitioner was suffering from jaundice from 6th April 2008 to December 2008. But this cannot be believed, for the simple reason that the Doctor also not stated, whether he actually treated him and what treatment given by him etc. It appears the said document must be issued for the sake of a document to help the petitioner if possible. The said document cannot be believed as there has been no whisper about this document throughout since the date of initiation of the Departmental enquiry by the respondent. The document is also not supported by any evidence also. 7. Further added to the above, though the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been suffering from bilateral cerebella infarction. He has not produced any material before this court that he has been recovered from that particular disease i.e., brain tumor in order to hold that he can still continue to work in the department. This in fact evidenced from the record that in spite of giving opportunity after he has taken the treatment in Dharwad Hospital for bilateral cerebella infarction and even after condoning the absence of this man on that ground for a period of 121 days and even after in the month of May, 2009 the department has given a notice to him to show that if claimant was fit to attend the duty, he was called upon to join the duty by issuing notice. In spite of receiving that notice also the petitioner has not joined the duty and he has not served the institution thereafter. Therefore, in support of his contention that he was suffering from severe illness which prevented him in attending the regular duties is not established. 8. In spite of receiving that notice also the petitioner has not joined the duty and he has not served the institution thereafter. Therefore, in support of his contention that he was suffering from severe illness which prevented him in attending the regular duties is not established. 8. Further the subsequent conduct of the petitioner also clearly establishes that, he never intended to attend the duty once again even after a magnanimous view taken by the department by condoning his absence for a period of 121 days. 9. The learned counsel also contended that under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the provision is very wide enough for taking sympathetic view for the purposes of granting the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. In fact the Labour Court has also taken into consideration the said provision under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and disposed of the contention for the reasons quoted in the judgment. While answering Issue No.3 the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to apply Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the said provision is not applicable, therefore, the court has not applied the said provision. Even otherwise the sympathy always been shown to the persons who have got respect to the institution and who are having real intention to serve the department with all sincerity and honestly, merely because they say that they are sincere and punctual to their work without any material on record to show that they were throughout sincere and honest to the institution, then conduct of the petitioner could have been liberally considered. But the Labour Court has observed that he has been regularly absenting himself on one or the other ground. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent though no materials have been produced submitted that even on previous occasion also he was removed from services from Ballary Depot but this Court cannot consider the said submission but the fact remains that the Labour Court has actually in detail on evidence considered the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, looking from any angle in my opinion the order passed by the Labour Court, which is based on factual aspects and legal aspects, does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. 11. Therefore, looking from any angle in my opinion the order passed by the Labour Court, which is based on factual aspects and legal aspects, does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. 11. This court is dismissing the petition confirming the order passed by the Labour Court and as well as the Disciplinary Authority in removing the petitioner from the services as that of a Trainee Conductor. But taking into consideration the work done by the petitioner as a trainee for such a long time from 1997 till the date of his removal inspite of his misconduct and inspite of his sickness and other things as pleaded by him though not proved but the fact remains that after he being removed from services he has to search for such other work and he has to suffer for sometime without any wages without any salary etc. Therefore, under the said circumstances, in order to avoid him from the lurches of the situation in my opinion some lumpsum compensation can be awarded to him in lieu of his dismissal from service. 12. It is worth to refer in this regard a decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.124125/2019 arising of out of SLP (C) Nos.1081510816/2017 between State of Uttarakhand and Another vs. Rajkumar. Wherein in the said case also the appellants were appointed as daily wages workers for long time and they also claimed for regularization of their services and after following certain procedure they were removed from the services by the respondents. They claimed for regularization by setting aside the termination order passed against them. In fact the Labour Court has dismissed their petition for restoration of their work and for regularization by setting aside the termination order. However ordered a monitory compensation of Rs.30,000/in full and final satisfaction of the respondents against their claim for reinstatement and consequential benefits etc., The said order was challenged before the High Court and the High Court has also modified the award of the Labour Court and instead directed the reinstatement of the respondents in the said services but without any payment of back wages to them. The said order of the High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and ultimately the Apex Court enhanced the compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh as against Rs.30,000/as awarded by the Labour Court and restored the order of the Labour Court. 13. The said order of the High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and ultimately the Apex Court enhanced the compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh as against Rs.30,000/as awarded by the Labour Court and restored the order of the Labour Court. 13. In view of the above said circumstances prevailing in this particular case, I am of the opinion that awarding a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh to the petitioner as lumpsum compensation would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the following order ORDER The writ petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.23/2012 dated 08.08.2012 is hereby confirmed. However the lumpsum compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh is awarded to the petitioner. The respondent is hereby directed to pay the said amount within eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.