ORDER : Heard Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2. 2. This writ application is directed against the Award dated 19.04.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case No. 16 of 1999 by which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman and the management has been directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service, seniority, promotion and all other consequential benefits together with payment of back wages for entire period during which he remained out of employment except for the period from 25.01.1984 to 11.03.1985. 3. The concerned workman was working in a permanent post of Welder Grade III in the petitioner – company who was dismissed from service vide office order dated 31.03.1985. The concerned workman raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the learned Labour Court and the terms of reference are as follows: “Whether the termination of Sri Sharda Prasad Singh, Staff No. 681967 (Old Staff No. 156069) in the middle of the service period (from 85 to 89) by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant is illegal? Or he is entitled to be regularized with full salary payment? Or what relief he is entitled to?” 4. A written statement was filed by the workman in which it has been stated that he was initially appointed as a Welder/Gas cutter by the Management vide offer of appointment dated 20/24.02.1972. He was promoted to the post of Welder Grade II in the scale of Rs. 355-487 by an order of promotion dated 23.08.1976. It has been stated that while working with sincerity and ability, he had all of a sudden become mentally deranged. Later on, he came to know that by violating the principles of natural justice, charge-sheet was issued to him and the inquiry which followed was also held behind his back. He has further stated that the order of dismissal was also in flagrant violations of the rules. The written statement further states that the illegalities of the Management was sought to be covered up by appointing the workman as a Khalasi on a casual basis vide order of appointment dated 09.05.1989. Since the workman was on the verge of starvation, he was forced to take up the assignment. The written statement further states that the illegalities of the Management was sought to be covered up by appointing the workman as a Khalasi on a casual basis vide order of appointment dated 09.05.1989. Since the workman was on the verge of starvation, he was forced to take up the assignment. In spite of his representation for confirmation in the post which the workman was holding and continuity of service, the Management refused to accept such demand. It has been stated that the concerned workman was made permanent on and from 22.11.1990. 5. In the written statement preferred by the Management, the allegations levelled by the workman have been denied. It has been stated that the re-appointment of the workman in May 1989 was made more on humanitarian ground in view of the repeated requests and appeals made by the concerned workman. So far as the merits of the claim of the workman is concerned, it has been stated that he went on half pay leave from 12.01.1984 to 24.01.1984, but did not turn up for duty nor did he sent any information. He continued to remain absent unauthorisedly. The authority concerned, once the issue was brought before him, advised the workman to join duty vide letter dated 25.02.1984. The workman concerned neither joined the duty nor did he send any application for extension of leave or for that matter any application for such unauthorized absence. He was issued a charge-sheet along with the statement of the imputations dated 18.06.1984 through registered post to his permanent address, but it returned unserved. Accordingly, an Inquiry Committee was constituted and the concerned workman was directed to appear before the Inquiry Committee, but neither did he make himself present nor did he send any information showing his inability to appear before the Committee. The inquiry proceeded ex-parte and ultimately, the charges having been proved, the concerned workman was found guilty of absenting from duty since 25.01.1984 unauthorisedly. The report was accordingly submitted and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 31.05.1985 removed him from the service of the Company. It has further been stated that no assurance was given by the Management to allow him to join the duty if he came with medical certificate. It has further been reiterated that the re-appointment was given to the concerned workman purely on humanitarian grounds. 6. Mr. It has further been stated that no assurance was given by the Management to allow him to join the duty if he came with medical certificate. It has further been reiterated that the re-appointment was given to the concerned workman purely on humanitarian grounds. 6. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the fairness and propriety of the domestic inquiry was never challenged by the workman. It has further been stated that the Award dated 19.04.2001 is vitiated in law as the same is purely based on presumptions without there being any concrete evidence which would indicate that the Management had acted in an illegal manner in dismissing the concerned workman from the service of the Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the concerned workman was unauthorisedly absent after availing half pay leave upto 24.01.1984 and had never even applied for extension of leave which ultimately culminated in removal of the concerned workman from service. He has further argued that the dispute itself is time barred as it was raised 7 years after the date of his re-appointment and 11 years after his removal from service. 7. The fairness or otherwise of the domestic inquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue, but the workman himself had filed an application stating therein that he does not want to assail the fairness of the domestic inquiry held by the management. Accordingly, in view of the said application, the case proceeded for hearing on merits which finally culminated in the impugned award being passed on 19.04.2001. 8. The workman concerned was appointed on 20/24.02.1972. He was removed from service vide letter dated 31.05.1985. He was re-appointed on a casual basis on 09.05.1989 and was made permanent on 22.11.1990. An undertaking was given by the workman, foregoing any claim arising out of and relating to his previous employment which was marked as Exhibit M/12. 9. The dispute which was raised by the workman by his letter dated 28.06.1996 has been raised after 11 years from the date of his removal and 6 years after he was made permanent in his subsequent employment. The question of this unreasonableness and unexplainable delay on the part of the concerned workman has not been looked into by the learned Labour Court. The question of this unreasonableness and unexplainable delay on the part of the concerned workman has not been looked into by the learned Labour Court. It appears that the concerned workman once having given a foot hold after his re-appointment has challenged his initial order of removal. Even if it is assumed that the undertaking given by the workman (M/12) at the time of his re-appointment was under coercion or compelling circumstances, but the same would not weed out the apparent laches in raising an industrial dispute after such undue delay. 10. Regarding the removal of the workman from the services of the Company is concerned, the Award by the learned Labour Court seems to be peppered with presumptions. It is not in dispute that the workman concerned after expiry of his half pay leave on 24.01.1984, neither made any application for extension of leave nor did he join his duties. The fairness and propriety of the domestic inquiry was also never challenged by the workman. The charge-sheet along with the statement of the imputations were sent to the permanent address of the workman, but it returned undelivered. The Management had not exhibited the envelope and the endorsement on it, but that by itself could not have been the sole basis of the findings of the learned Labour Court that the same was against the principles of natural justice. Here the Labour Court goes one step forward by concluding that contention of the management regarding the workman absenting himself cannot be accepted. Reliance has been placed on Exhibit M/9 which is a communication made by the workman, but not supported by any documentary or oral evidence. If the younger brother who was also working in the company had informed the Management about the reasons for his absence, there must have been some documentary proof to suggest so. Moreover his younger brother must have been aware about the rules and regulations of the Company being an employee himself as well as the consequences of abandonment of service and absence of any chit of paper supporting the cause of the workman indicates the falsity of such contentions. 11. The workman had contended that he was sick from 18.01.1984 upto 11.03.1985 and reliance in that context has been placed on a medical certificate. 11. The workman had contended that he was sick from 18.01.1984 upto 11.03.1985 and reliance in that context has been placed on a medical certificate. Even if the medical certificate is assumed to be a genuine document, the same does not give a liberty to the workman not to intimate about his illness to the Management either by himself or through others. Absence for long without any intimation is a grave mis-conduct and the management therefore had rightly taken the decision to remove the workman from service after conducting a departmental inquiry. The leniency shown by the learned Labour Court would foster indiscipline amongst the workers. It is therefore concluded that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City has wrongly answered the Reference in favour of the workman. 12. Since the Reference has been answered by this Court in favour of the Management, consequently relief granted to the workman in the Award dated 19.04.2001 has become redundant. 13. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the Award dated 19.04.2001 passed in the Reference Case No. 16 of 1999 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro is hereby set aside.