JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. The present appeal emanates from the order dated 22.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-Corporation, challenging the award dated 04.04.2022, passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case (LCJ) No. 116 of 2015, wherein the Labour Court had directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent-workman with full back wages. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the award to the extent of granting back wages, and a cost of Rs.15,000/- was also directed to be paid to the respondent-workman. 4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the appellant-Corporation has submitted that in fact, the respondent-workman was working as a daily wager and though a full-fledged inquiry was not required, the appellant-Corporation initiated fullfledged inquiry by issuing a charge-sheet for the misconduct of remaining absent on numerous occasions. He has submitted that after the inquiry was completed, a second show-cause notice was issued by the Municipal Commissioner and thereafter, the respondent-workman was terminated from services on the ground of remaining absent. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that on the earlier occasion also, when the respondent-workman remained absent, he was issued a show-cause notice on 29.09.2012 and the respondent-workman had assured that he would not remain absent, however, thereafter, the respondent-workman remained unauthorizedly absent on numerous occasions, which ultimately constrained the appellant-Corporation to initiate regular departmental inquiry. It is submitted that after the departmental proceedings were held, the Inquiry Officer vide report dated 16.10.2014, on the charges proved, issued a second show-cause notice to the respondent on 07.03.2015 and ultimately, was dismissed on 18.05.2015. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has pointed out the findings recorded by the Labour Court and has submitted that the Labour Court fell in error in observing that the inquiry proceedings had been conducted illegally and no witness was examined to prove the charges. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has pointed out the findings recorded by the Labour Court and has submitted that the Labour Court fell in error in observing that the inquiry proceedings had been conducted illegally and no witness was examined to prove the charges. It is submitted that in fact the charge was of absenteeism and the respondent-workman had admitted that he had remained absent due to his illness; however, no documentary evidence was produced by him to show that he has remained ill on numerous occasions. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the Labour Court has very vaguely concluded that the departmental proceedings were illegal. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has also fell in error in upholding the findings of the Labour Court relating to the departmental proceedings. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the Single Judge may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, confirming the findings of the Labour Court with regard to the illegal departmental proceedings may not be interfered with as the same is precisely passed. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that the Labour Court has precisely held that the departmental proceedings is defective in nature and hence the appellant-Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post. It is submitted that in fact, no witness was examined during the departmental proceedings and no opportunity was given to the workman to adduce the evidence and hence, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with as the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has recorded that an opportunity may be granted to the employer to hold a fresh inquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice and to pass a fresh order. Thus, it is urged that the inquiry proceedings are held in violation of principles of natural justice and the same were required to be set aside, which is precisely done by the Labour Court. 7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. 8. Thus, it is urged that the inquiry proceedings are held in violation of principles of natural justice and the same were required to be set aside, which is precisely done by the Labour Court. 7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. 8. The facts, which are established from the pleadings, are that the respondent-workman was issued a show-cause notice dated 29.09.2012, for constantly remaining absent on duty. He was engaged as a daily wager by the appellant-Corporation. In response to the show-cause notice, the respondent-workman had assured that he will not remain unauthorizedly absent. Despite such undertaking, he again remained absent for the period mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the respondent-workman remained absent, a charge-sheet dated 06.05.2013 was issued to him. 9. It is also undisputed fact that after the issuance of the charge-sheet, the respondent-workman did not give his reply to the charge-sheet. Nothing is pointed out to us by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman that he had given any reply to the charge-sheet. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold a regular departmental inquiry for the charges of remaining absent for the period i.e. from June, 2012, 10 days in July, 2012, 10 days in August, 2012 and in September, 2012, he has remained unauthorised absent without filing any report. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 29.09.2012 and thereafter again, he remained absent for 12 days in October, 2012, 12 days in November, 2012, 6 days in December, 2012, 3 days in February, 2013 and 9 days in March, 2013. For all these period, the respondent-workman had remained unauthorisedly absent and the charge-sheet specifically refers that he has committed misconduct under Section 24 of the Standing Orders. 10. The respondent-workman was informed by the letter dated 25.06.2012, about the details of his remaining absence. On 10.10.2012, the respondent-workman also filed his reply to the show-cause notice. The Inquiry Officer has in detail recorded each and every document including his muster roll and thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has held the charges as proved. There are atleast 40 documents, considered by the Inquiry Officer while recording his findings. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded that the delinquent has admitted all the charges by his communication below Exh.19. The Inquiry Officer has in detail recorded each and every document including his muster roll and thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has held the charges as proved. There are atleast 40 documents, considered by the Inquiry Officer while recording his findings. The Inquiry Officer has also recorded that the delinquent has admitted all the charges by his communication below Exh.19. After the inquiry was concluded, the Inquiry Officer report was prepared on 16.10.2014, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice to the respondent-workman on 07.03.2015. 11. Thereafter, the respondent-workman was also offered to be personally heard and was called upon on 09.03.2015. The respondent-workman had also filed written explanation before the Commissioner and after considering all these aspects, the Commissioner by the order dated 18.05.2015, terminated the service of the respondent-workman. Thus, the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the inquiry was vitiated, since there was breach of principles of natural justice by the Inquiry Officer, is contrary to the findings on record. The respondent-workman was again given ample opportunity to participate in the departmental proceedings and after the inquiry was over, he has been given sufficient opportunity to tender his explanation. 12. The respondent-workman has not alleged that the departmental inquiry was held de hors the Rules or Regulations. It is not alleged that while holding the departmental inquiry, any Rule/Regulation governing the same has been violated. It appears that the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge has forgotten the status of the respondent-workman who was working as a daily wager. The Labour Court while holding that the departmental inquiry was vitiated on the ground of principles of natural justice was required to delve into the issue about the applicability of Rules/Regulations governing the departmental inquiry to a daily wager. The entire departmental proceeding was premised on the documentary evidence. The respondent-workman has admitted his guilt. These are the vital aspects, which cannot be ignored while dealing with the validity and legality of the departmental inquiry. Thus, the award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar is erroneous and the learned Single Judge also fell in error in confirming the findings recorded by the Labour Court, which are contrary to the record. 13. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Thus, the award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar is erroneous and the learned Single Judge also fell in error in confirming the findings recorded by the Labour Court, which are contrary to the record. 13. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Pandya, appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the respondent-workman before his termination has rendered 7 years of service and even the Labour Court has recorded in the findings that the powers are required to be exercised under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred as ‘the I.D. Act’). However, the Labour Court has recorded the findings on the disciplinary proceedings and no evidence is recorded that punishment of dismissal or termination was disproportionate to the misconduct. It is submitted that the workman had remained absent for few days and as the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct, since the respondent-workman had served for seven years and there is no prior misconduct alleged against the respondent-workman, a lenient view may be taken. 14. We are in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Pandya. The Labour Court in Para-19, while recording the reasons for findings has referred to the provisions of Section 11(A) of the I.D. Act. Through this provision, the Labour Court Tribunal and National Tribunals are conferred with discretionary powers to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal, if any as it thinks fit, and direct the respondent-workman on such terms as a case may be, in case the Labour Court or the Tribunal finds that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. After incorporating the provision of section 11(A) of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court has arrived at the findings relating to the departmental inquiry and has held that the same is against the principles of natural justice. 15. Hence, in the interest of justice, we pass the following order: (i) Upon overall appreciation of the facts, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (ii) The impugned award dated 04.04.2022, passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar, is also quashed and set aside by upholding the validity and legality of the departmental proceedings held by the appellant-authority. (ii) The impugned award dated 04.04.2022, passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar, is also quashed and set aside by upholding the validity and legality of the departmental proceedings held by the appellant-authority. (iii) We find that since there was no opinion expressed by the Labour Court, with regard to the proportionality of the punishment apro pos, the proved misconduct, we remand the matter to the Labour Court. (iv) The reference proceeding being Reference Case (LCJ) No. 116/2015 is ordered to be restored to its original file. (v) The Labour Court, Jamnagar is directed to pass appropriate order/award on the aspect of proportionality of the punishment in light of the proved misconduct. (vi) It is clarified that the Labour Court shall confine its findings only on the proportionality of the punishment and nothing should be expressed on the findings of the departmental proceedings. (vii) The respondent-workman as well as the appellantauthority shall not adduce any further evidence and the findings of Labour Court should be confined only to the proportionality of the punishment by exercising the powers under Section 11(A) of the I.D. Act. (viii) Since the dispute is of the year 2012, the Labour Court shall make its endeavor to dispose of the Reference Case (LCJ) No. 116/2015, preferably within a period of six months. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the LPA is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Civil Application, accordingly stands disposed of.