ORDER : 1. The matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the respondent No. 1 as well as the order of the Labour Court dated 28.03.2018 in IDA No. 33/2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 inter-alia seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with continuity of service and other consequential reliefs. 3. The petitioner-workman was the applicant before the Labour Court wherein he had challenged the order of dismissal dated 25.07.2016 dismissing him from the service on the allegation that he remained absent without sanction of leave for the period from 24.10.2015 to 02.02.2016 [102 days]. The Labour Court by order dated 28.03.2018 has approved the order of dismissal, rejecting the dispute filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged unauthorized absence is for a period of 102 days from 24.10.2015 to 02.02.2016 assuming that the said absence was without leave, it could not be construed as a grave misconduct to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner having served the Corporation from 20.05.2008, ought not to have been subjected to the extreme punishment of dismissal resulting in the family of the petitioner to suffer. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the quantum of punishment imposed by the Labour Court is shockingly disproportionate and the same warrants interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court while considering the past history of the petitioner, has taken the total absenteeism for a period of 766 days relating to the period from 08.01.2009 to 24.10.2015 ignoring the factum that except the period from 11.03.2012 to 25.08.2012 and 16.11.2013 to 25.02.2014, the other period of absenteeism was minimal, the petitioner cannot be driven to streets by imposing the major punishment of dismissal for remaining absent for 102 days from 24.10.2015 to 02.02.2016. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would submit that considering the habitual absenteeism of the petitioner, the Labour Court has rightly arrived at a decision confirming the dismissal order passed by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner has remained absent for about 766 days in the tenure of 8 years 2 months while working as the driver-cum-conductor in the respondent-Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would submit that considering the habitual absenteeism of the petitioner, the Labour Court has rightly arrived at a decision confirming the dismissal order passed by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner has remained absent for about 766 days in the tenure of 8 years 2 months while working as the driver-cum-conductor in the respondent-Corporation. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed confirming the order of the Labour Court as well as the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No. 1-Corporation. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 102 days from 24.10.2015 to 02.02.2016. It is also not in dispute that eight similar proceedings were initiated by the respondent- Corporation for the unauthorized absence of the petitioner. In such cases, the petitioner was subjected to minor punishment. Hence, it was incumbent on the petitioner to rectify his conduct, but the same has been recurred again from 24.10.2015 to 02.02.2016. Committing such absenteeism repeatedly would certainly call for a major punishment. But the said major punishment should not be harsh keeping in mind the total number of years of service made by the petitioner in the respondent-Corporation. Keeping that aspect in mind, the Labour Court ought to have exercised power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in a pragmatic view, but the Labour Court has confirmed the order of dismissal considering the past history as reflected in the dismissal order dated 25.07.2016. 8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served in modifying the quantum of punishment for the misconduct of unauthorized absence of the petitioner for 102 days from 24.10.2015 to 02.02.2016. Hence, the dismissal order passed by the respondent No. 1 is modified as the order of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits flowing from such an order of compulsory retirement from service in terms of the Regulations/Rules of the Corporation. 9. The compliance shall be made by the respondent No. 1 in an expedite manner preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions. Writ petition stands disposed of.