JUDGMENT : The present Appeal is arising out of the order dated 14th September, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge on Writ Petition No.34966/2018 (L-KSRTC) [The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mr. Sunil Chimal]. 2. The facts of the case reveals that the respondent-employee was serving in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [hereinafter referred to as 'KSRTC' for short] on the post of Driver-cum-Conductor and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 29.11.2013. 3. The employee has raised a dispute being aggrieved by the order of dismissal and filed a claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1998 and 2011) and the Labour court after hearing the parties at length has directed reinstatement of the workman without back wages. 4. The facts of the case as reflected from the award makes it evident is that the employee in question was appointed in the year 2009 and he met with an accident, he suffered injuries and went to his native place. It is further stated that he was falsely implicated in a murder case on account of dispute between his family and the villagers. He was in judicial custody with effect from 14.11.2013 to 10.1.2014 and while he was in custody, he was dismissed from service. The record further reveals that a charge sheet was issued for unauthorized absence from 10.07.2012 to 29.11.2013. After conducting an ex-parte inquiry, he was dismissed from service. The labour court has set aside the ex-parte inquiry and has held that the capital punishment imposed is disproportionate and has set aside the order of punishment directing reinstatement without back wages. 5. The KSRTC being aggrieved by the order dated 9th November, 2017 passed in ID No.2/2015 by the Principal District Judge, Chikkakballapur has approached this Court and the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.34966/2018 reads as under : "3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management submits that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for one year fourteen months and nineteen days and the reasons given by the labour Court is that he was in judicial custody with reference to a criminal case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management submits that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for one year fourteen months and nineteen days and the reasons given by the labour Court is that he was in judicial custody with reference to a criminal case. While the said reasons have been accepted the submission of the learned counsel before this Court is, his unauthorized absence is not to the period when he is in judicial custody but subsequent to that date and this was not brought to the notice of the Labour Court. 4. The contentions of the respective parties have been accepted by the learned judge and it is his decision that reinstatement is to be made. When such decision is made, without there being any arbitrariness in decision making process, I do not find any good reasons to interfere with the same. The rejection is also on the ground that what has been ordered is reinstatement by denying backages and the pay of the workman shall be his last basic drawn as on the date of dismissal. This itself is a punishment. Considering all these, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Petition accordingly stands dismissed." 5. This court has carefully gone through the award of the Labour Court and the Order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent employee was involved in a criminal case relating to a murder case and later on he was arrested also. Hence, he was not able to report on duty. For not reporting on duty he was treated as unauthorizedly absent and a capital punishment was awarded. The punishment of dismissal in respect of unauthorized absence keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the delinquent employee. Under these circumstances, the Labour court was justified in directing reinstatement without back wages. Hence, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the labour court nor the order of the learned single Judge. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.