ORDER : The petitioner has succeeded partially in the dispute in ID No.26/2012 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore (for short, ‘the Labour Court’) inasmuch as the Labour Court by its award dated 04.01.2014 has set aside the petitioner’s dismissal from service and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner would not be entitled to either back wages or the consequential benefits for the period between 04.05.2010 and the date of reinstatement. The petitioner is aggrieved by this denial of back wages and the consequential benefits. 2. The respondent conducted enquiry against the petitioner for his absence from service between 04.05.2010 and 08.06.2011, the date of Articles of Charge served on the petitioner. The respondent by order dated 03.01.2012 dismissed the petitioner from service holding that the petitioner’s absence from service between 04.05.2010 and 08.06.2011 was unauthorized and therefore, the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. The Petitioner raised a dispute challenging this order of dismissal dated 03.01.2012, which culminated with the Labour Court’s award dated 04.01.2014 as aforesaid. The respondent has not challenged the Labour Court’s award and the petitioner is reinstated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the denial of back wages or the consequential benefits for the period of absence but the petitioner’s grievance is with the denial of back wages and consequential benefits for the period between the date of dismissal from service and the date of reinstatement. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has arrived at a categorical finding that the respondent did not consider the petitioner’s request for leave and that this amounts to unfair labour practice and the petitioner’s victimization. It is settled law that if the dismissal is because of an unfair labour practice and the employee/workman is victimized, the employee would be entitled for back wages and consequential benefits. Therefore, the denial of backwages and consequential benefits cannot be sustained. The denial of backwages and consequential benefits has denied the petitioner a number of promotions with his juniors being placed above him. 4. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Therefore, the denial of backwages and consequential benefits cannot be sustained. The denial of backwages and consequential benefits has denied the petitioner a number of promotions with his juniors being placed above him. 4. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Municipal Council, Narkhed & Ors reported in 2020 LLR 1 to emphasize his contention that if it is found that an employee’s dismissal of the petitioner is because of unfair labour practice, and without the employee’s fault, the rule, ordinarily, is to grant back wages and consequential benefits. 5. Per contra, Smt. H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Labour Court in denying the back wages and the consequential benefits has considered the totality of the circumstances including the petitioner’s prior conduct inasmuch as it has recorded the petitioner’s previous unauthorized absenteeism. The distinction now attempted by the learned counsel for the petitioner between the right to back wages and consequential benefits from the date of absence till the date of reinstatement and from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement is of no significance as the Labour Court’s decision is based on the respondent’s unauthorized absence from 04.05.2010. The Labour Court has granted relief to the petitioner, which is not contested by the respondent, in the background of the entire circumstances including the petitioner’s repeated absence. The learned counsel, in support of her submission, relies upon the tabular representation of the details of the petitioner’s absence for the period from 19992000 to 20102011 and in fact, she points out that these details are part of dismissal order dated 03.01.2012 and has been considered by the Labour Court. 6. The learned counsel, in support of her submission, relies upon the tabular representation of the details of the petitioner’s absence for the period from 19992000 to 20102011 and in fact, she points out that these details are part of dismissal order dated 03.01.2012 and has been considered by the Labour Court. 6. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Deepali Gundu Surwase’s case (supra) [which is reiterated even in the recent decision in Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel’s case (supra)], it must be said that it is settled that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages and consequential benefits is the normal rule, but this normal is subject to the adjunct rule that in deciding the issue of back wages and consequential benefits, the adjudicating authority as well as the Courts could take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. 7. There is no dispute in the present case that the petitioner, even prior to the subject unauthorized absence, remained absent from service without authorization incurring certain penal consequences such as, deduction of salary and certain amounts. The details of these unauthorized absence and the punishments are as follows: Sl. No. Case No Absence From To Shara/punishment 01 243/1999 23.08.1999 01.09.1999 Rs 200 recovered 02 282/2000 16.6.2000 10.7.2000 Ten days salary deducted 03 558/2004 11.06.2004 18.06.2001 Eight days salary deducted 04 673/2004 01.07.2004 05.07.2004 Ten days salary deducted 05 801/2006 23808.2006 12.09.2006 Rs 1500 recovered 06 580/2007 19.10.2007 03.11.2007 16 days salary deducted 07 192/2011 04.05.2010 Till date Present case 8. The Labour Court in arriving at its decision on denial of back wages and consequential benefit has considered the totality of the circumstances including the past history of the petitioner’s unauthorized absence, and after considering such circumstances has denied the benefit of back wages as well as consequential benefits. It must be emphasized that though the Labour Court has observed that there are only two occasions of unauthorized absence by the petitioner, it would be factually incorrect in as much as there is no dispute that the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent on six other occasions of varying period. It must be emphasized that though the Labour Court has observed that there are only two occasions of unauthorized absence by the petitioner, it would be factually incorrect in as much as there is no dispute that the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent on six other occasions of varying period. The Labour Court in the facts and circumstances has directed reinstatement with continuity of service but denying the backwages and consequential benefits: given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not persuaded to interfere under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to conclude that the Labour Court has erred in its decision and accept the petitioner’s plea that the petitioner should be granted back wages and consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.