JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. - This writ appeal has been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pursuant to order dated 13.04.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5236/ 2017 [SLP (Civil) No. 30310/2014], The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under: "Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 5th August, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that after setting out the facts of the case and after examining the point urged before the Labour Court and the learned single Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court did not give any reason while dismissing the appeal. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court for deciding afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The appeal succeeds and is allowed in the above terms. The amount deposited by the appellant Corporation in the Registry of this Court, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court shall be remitted back to the High Court and the parties shall abide by the decision of the High Court." 2. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent at length and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly stated the facts are: The respondent was an employee of the North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation who was working as driver at Hospet Depot. He was served with an article of charge dated 18.12.1998 alleging that he remained un authorisedly absent from duty for three months from 13. 09.1998 to 14.12. 1998, to which he submitted reply stating that he was suffering from illness and even though he sent leave applications along with medical certificate for grant of leave to the Depot Manager, same were not considered. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the said reply, initiated departmental enquiry and after conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer held respondent guilty of the charge. Accepting the said findings, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service keeping in view the respondent's past default history. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the said reply, initiated departmental enquiry and after conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer held respondent guilty of the charge. Accepting the said findings, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service keeping in view the respondent's past default history. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 69/2003. After contest, the Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 09.08.2004 allowed the claim petition and set aside the order of dismissal and since the respondent had attained the age of superannuation, directed the appellant Corporation to treat the period of absence of respondent as on duty and awarded 75% of backwages to the respondent. Challenging the said award, the Corporation preferred Writ Petition No. 15427/2005 [L-KSRTC], Learned single Judge by order dated 15.01.2013 dismissed the writ petition confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the Corporation. 4. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned single Judge has found that unauthorised absence for a period of three months should not have been meted with the punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal rightly modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority directing reinstatement with 75% of back wages and withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that award of back wages of 75% was on the higher side. It should have been only 50% if the learned single Judge was right in otherwise confirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal. He submitted that once the charges have been proved, the award of backwages does not arise and that in the instant case, it is 75% which is exorbitant and therefore, at least on that aspect of the matter, this Court may interfere in the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was dismissed from service on 03.02.2000 and the award of the Industrial Tribunal is dated 09.08.2004. That, in March 2004, he retired during the pendency of the matter before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the award of backwages is only between 03. 02.2000 and March 2004 which is only for a period of four years and that too at only 75%. That there is no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. 7. That, in March 2004, he retired during the pendency of the matter before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the award of backwages is only between 03. 02.2000 and March 2004 which is only for a period of four years and that too at only 75%. That there is no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent/employee remained un authorisedly absent for duty from 13.09.1998 to 14.12.1998 i.e., till the date of issuance of article of charge. That his absence was on account of ill-health and that he had applied for grant of leave on medical grounds. The same was not granted, resulting in initiation of disciplinary enquiry against him. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the enquiry being conducted, which has been held to be fair and proper by the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent was dismissed from service on 03.02.2000. The Tribunal found that despite proof of the charge against the respondent, the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore, the period from the date of dismissal till the date of attaining the age of superannuation was treated as on duty and for the said period, 75% of backwages was awarded and there was reduction of pay of the respondent by two increments and further, respondent was entitled to all terminal benefits on his retirement. Though reinstatement was ordered by the Tribunal, all consequential benefits on account of reinstatement was not awarded. Back wages of only 75% was awarded and there was reduction in the pay of the respondent by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. The said award of the Tribunal was assailed by the appellant-Corporation in Writ Petition No. 15427/2005 (L-KSRTC) wherein it was found that for unauthorised absence from duty for a period of three months, dismissal from service was disproportionate penalty. In the circumstances, award of the Tribunal was confirmed and the writ petition was dismissed. We also affirm the reinstatement of the workman with reduction in pay by two increments which is with cumulative effect which is in substance a reduction in salary having a permanent effect. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation submits that instead of 75% backwages, only 50% may be awarded. We also affirm the reinstatement of the workman with reduction in pay by two increments which is with cumulative effect which is in substance a reduction in salary having a permanent effect. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation submits that instead of 75% backwages, only 50% may be awarded. Normally, when reinstatement is directed a workman is entitled to 100% back-wages of course in some decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that it could be only 50% or even less. 9. But since the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge have concurrently held that 75% back wages may be awarded in the instant case, we do not see any reason to deviate from the same. Further, the date of dismissal is 03.02.2000, respondent superannuated in March 2004. The period for which 75% back wages is to be paid is only for about four years unlike in some other cases where back wages is awarded for over a decade. Therefore, there is no financial prejudice caused to the appellant-Corporation. 10. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is hence dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs. The amount of Rs. 2, 02,453/- which has been received from the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.09.2017 and which is sent to the Accounts Section for taking necessary steps, be released to respondent No. 1A, being the widow of the deceased respondent-employee. Appeal dismissed.