JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.25425 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner therein is in appeal. 2. The respondent herein was working as a Driver in the appellant Corporation. On the allegation that he had remained unauthorisedly absent during the periods 19.05.2010 to 21.08.2010, action was initiated and enquiry was held, pursuant to which the order of dismissal dated 10.02.2012 was passed. The respondent aggrieved by the same, raised dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru. The Labour Court, after taking note of the rival contentions, at the outset, held that the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. However, taking note of the evidence and circumstances, it came to the conclusion that in the absence of appellant herein producing the relevant material, it is not possible to hold that the respondent had remained unauthorizedly absent. On that ground, it set aside the order of dismissal. It directed reinstatement of the respondent into his original post with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits with back wages to the extent of 50% from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The appellant Corporation aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, preferred the instant writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge in his order has observed that the Labour Court had held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. There is proof that the respondent was admitted to hospital and had certain health issues because of which, he had remained absent from duty. He has further observed that, however, the respondent had failed to obtain the approval of leave from the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge also noted that it is not appropriate to re-appreciate the evidence in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. But, the learned Single Judge concluded that though the respondent had some justification to remain absent, there is no material on record to indicate that he had produced the same before the employer and got sanction of the leave. In such circumstances, even if the period of absence of the respondent is taken note, it would not be appropriate to grant the back wages. In such circumstances, even if the period of absence of the respondent is taken note, it would not be appropriate to grant the back wages. Hence, the learned Single Judge has set aside the award of the Labour Court insofar as it relates to granting of back wages. In all other aspects, the award was confront. 4. The appellant aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge has contended that the learned Single Judge upon finding that there is no material on record to indicate that respondent had produced the relevant material to show that he deserves leave and he remained absent unauthorizedly, ought to have upheld the dismissal order. The learned Single Judge should have allowed the writ petition as prayed for. 5. The respondent on contra has contended that there are certain medical certificates produced, which shows that the respondent had suffered ill health and was admitted to the hospital and it requires him to take rest and consequently, he could not attend his office. He sought for dismissal of the writ appeal. 6. The Labour Court has found the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. The records also indicate that the respondent had undergone some treatment in Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Ayurveda and Hospital and the medical certificate was issued by Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Hospital. It would not be appropriate for the writ Court to re-appreciate the evidence produced by the Labour Court. Nevertheless, it is not disputed by the parties that the respondent remained absent unauthorisedly for some time. Thus, the finding of the Labour Court that there was no unauthorized absent on the part of the respondent is erroneous. The Learned Single Judge while considering these aspects has rightly observed that in so far as reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court, he does not see any reason to interfere. However, with regard to the back wages, on the ground that the respondent remained absent without getting the leave sanctioned and that there is no material to indicate that he had produced the relevant medical certificate before the employer for sanctioning of leave, the back wages were not granted. Apart from reinstatement and granting of 50% of back wages, the award of Labour Court also holds that the respondent herein is entitled to continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. This also has been disputed by appellant. Apart from reinstatement and granting of 50% of back wages, the award of Labour Court also holds that the respondent herein is entitled to continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. This also has been disputed by appellant. The learned Single Judge has not considered the same. 7. In our opinion considering the fact that the respondent has remained absent unauthorisedly, it would not be appropriate to grant any continuity of service and other consequential benefits also. Hence, partial interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge is called for. Accordingly, the order of reinstatement of the respondent by the Labour Court, duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. The order of the learned Single Judge denying him the back wages is also upheld. However, it is hereby ordered that the respondent shall not be entitled to continuity of service and other consequential benefits. No order as to costs.