ORDER : The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of these writ petitions are as under: 1.1. The respondent herein was appointed as Conductor in the year 1995 in the petitioner – Transport Corporation. While he was working as Conductor, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo dated 28.07.2013 on the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty from 05.08.2011 to 19.10.2013. It was thereafter, the petitioner – Transport Corporation conducted an enquiry into the matter and finally passed an order dated 18.03.2015 dismissing the respondent from service. 1.2. Simultaneously, while passing the said order, the petitioner – Transport Corporation submitted an application in A.P.No.55 of 2015, under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, “the Act, 1947”) before the authority concerned i.e., Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, seeking approval for dismissal of the respondent from service and the said application was rejected by the authority concerned by passing an order dated 16.04.2018. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 16.04.2018, the Transport Corporation has filed the present writ petition. 1.3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent herein was reinstated into service on 05.10.2022 and accordingly, the respondent has been working in the respondent – Transport Corporation. 2. Heard Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Transport Corporation and Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - workman 3. Under the impugned order, the authority concerned has come to the conclusion that the petitioner – Transport Corporation has conducted an enquiry by following due process of law and also came to the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the petitioner – Transport Corporation in holding the charge levelled against the respondent is proved is correct. However, the authority concerned interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service only on the ground that the said punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the respondent and therefore, refused to grant approval for dismissal of the respondent from service. 4. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Transport Corporation strenuously contended that the authority concerned, while considering the application submitted by the petitioner – Transport Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, has no jurisdiction or authority to go into the aspect of proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed on the workman. 4. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Transport Corporation strenuously contended that the authority concerned, while considering the application submitted by the petitioner – Transport Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, has no jurisdiction or authority to go into the aspect of proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed on the workman. When the said authority concerned has, once, come to the conclusion that the petitioner – Transport Corporation has followed the procedures as contemplated under law and arrived at the conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondent is proved, it is bound to grant approval for dismissal of the respondent from service. Further, he also contended that the power, conferred under Section 11A of the Act, 1947 on the Labour Court, is not available to the authority concerned, while considering the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the approval petition, after having concluded that the charge levelled against the respondent is established is totally without jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, Mr.A.Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the authority concerned, while examining the application submitted under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, has got every power to go into the aspect of proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed, in case if the said authority comes to the conclusion that there is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer and the punishment sought to be imposed is intended to victimize the employee. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The only misconduct, levelled against the respondent, is the unauthorized absence from 05.08.2011 to 19.10.2013. It is only on the charge of unauthorized absence for the said period, the respondent is sought to be dismissed from service. It is now settled legal position that mere unauthorized absence from duty would not result in imposing a punishment of dismissal from service. It is only on establishing that such unauthorized absence is willful and an unreasonable explanation is offered, then such unauthorized absence would amount to a misconduct warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings for imposing a major penalty. But, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner – Transport Corporation that the unauthorized absence of the respondent is willful amounting to misconduct. But, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner – Transport Corporation that the unauthorized absence of the respondent is willful amounting to misconduct. As it is a settled legal position that mere unauthorized absence shall not result in imposing a major punishment of dismissal or removal from service, this Court is inclined to examine the matter in detail. 8. The only contention raised before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Transport Corporation is that the authority concerned, while considering the application submitted by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, has no jurisdiction to go into the aspect of the proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed on the employee. 9. This Court is unable to accept the said contention in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Lalla Ram vs. Management of D.C.M.Chemical Works Ltd. , and another , reported in AIR 1978 SC 1004 , wherein the Honourable Apex Court, after having examined various cases, came to the conclusion that in case if the authority concerned, while considering the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, comes to the conclusion that there is victimisation of the employee and unfair labour practice on the part of the employer while passing an order of dismissal or removal of the employee from service, it can always interfere with the punishment sought to be imposed while exercising the power under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1948. As the said decision is relied upon by the learned counsel on either side and it is a settled legal position that mere unauthorized absence would not amount to a misconduct, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Transport Corporation that the authority concerned, while considering the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, cannot go into the aspect of proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed on the employee. In the light of the decision in the case of Lalla Ram (cited supra), it cannot be said that the authority concerned, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, lacks jurisdiction to go into the aspect of proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed on the delinquent employee. In the light of the decision in the case of Lalla Ram (cited supra), it cannot be said that the authority concerned, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, lacks jurisdiction to go into the aspect of proportionality of the punishment sought to be imposed on the delinquent employee. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Transport Corporation. 10. As this Court observed above, mere unauthorized absence from duty shall not result in dismissal or removal of an employee from service, as the same was found fault by the Honourable Apex Court in catena of decisions and appropriate orders have been passed setting aside the orders of dismissal or removal of an employee from service. 11. Further, it is to be noted that the impugned order was passed on 16.04.2018 and whereas, the petitioner – Transport Corporation filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order only on 06.06.2019 i.e., after a lapse of one year. Thus, there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioner – Transport Corporation in filing the present writ petition and the same is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. 12. Taking into consideration the concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to forego the backwages from 05.08.2011 till 16.04.2018 i.e., the date on which the approval petition was rejected by the authority concerned, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with the following directions: (i) The petitioner – Transport Corporation shall pay the respondent the last drawn wages with effect from 16.04.2018 till 04.10.2022 after duly adjusting the amounts that were already paid to him. (ii) Further, the petitioner – Transport Corporation shall also pay the current wages by duly refixing the pay of the respondent on reinstatement into service with effect from 05.10.2022 by duly taking into account their service from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and shall pay all the arrears of salary that would fall due as on date. (iii) The petitioner – Transport Corporation is entitled to withhold the amount equivalent to the employee's contributions payable from 05.08.2011 till 04.10.2022 from and out of the amounts payable to the respondent and remit the same to the concerned authority. (iii) The petitioner – Transport Corporation is entitled to withhold the amount equivalent to the employee's contributions payable from 05.08.2011 till 04.10.2022 from and out of the amounts payable to the respondent and remit the same to the concerned authority. (iv) The entire exercise, as directed above, shall be completed by the petitioner – Transport Corporation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.