THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.6726 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed against the award of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in I.A.No.11 of 1998 dated 20.11.2000 whereby the order of the appellate authority directing appointment of the petitioner afresh, was upheld. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the services of the APSRTC as a driver on 8.4.1987, and his services were regularized with effect from 1.9.1987. The 2nd respondent issued charge memo dated 15.3.1993 for the petitioner’s unauthorized absence from duty from 20.1.1993 till the date of the charge memo i.e., 15.3.1993. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, by his order dated 12.11.1993, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority, by his order dated 25.4.1994, directed that the petitioner be reinstated into service afresh. Consequent thereto, the petitioner joined duty on 27.5.1994. He, later, invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking continuity of service with all consequential benefits and back wages. The Labour Court, while dealing with the question whether the 2nd respondent was justified in removing the petitioner from service, disbelieved the petitioner’s contention of having submitted a sick certificate through his co-worker on 29.1.1993. The Labour Court also noted that the only evidence on record were medical certificate dated 26.3.1993 (Ex.M.3), and the fitness certificate (Ex.M.4) wherein it was stated that the petitioner was fit to report for duty from 27.3.1993. The Labour Court did not disbelieve either Ex.M.3 or Ex.M.4 and, in fact, does not deal with the petitioner’s absence for the period from 30.1.1993 till 27.3.1993, when the petitioner reported for duty. The Labour Court merely held the petitioner guilty of unauthorized absence for the period from 20.1.1993 till 29.1.1993 i.e., for a period of nine days. The Labour Court, thereafter, held that the order of the 1st respondent in directing the petitioner’s appointment afresh, was neither harsh nor disproportionate. While Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited v. Mukul Kumar[1] to contend that, even for unauthorized absence for a period of six months, the punishment of removal from service is unduly harsh, Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation would submit that in several other judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court had held that unauthorized absence even for three months indicated lack of interest of the workman in the discharge of his duties. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the submissions in this regard since, admittedly, the unauthorized absence in the present case is merely for a period of nine days. Denying the petitioner – workman the entire service rendered by him from the date of his initial appointment on 8.4.1987 till he joined duty on 27.5.1994 is shockingly disproportionate to the charges held established. While this Court would not, ordinarily, substitute its views for that of the Labour Court/Tribunal, more so, on the question of penalty since this is a matter which the Labour Court is required to examine in proceedings under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, instead of relegating the petitioner to a long and arduous litigation afresh on the quantum of penalty, this Court should give a quietus thereto, and that the petitioner workman was ready and willing to forego his entire back wages if he was granted notional increments and continuity of service till date and his pay is re-fixed from the date of the order of this Court. On a specific query from this Court as to how the Labour Court was justified in not interfering with the quantum of punishment, when the period of absence held established only for nine days, Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, would express his inability to disagree with the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment, in such circumstances, is indeed disproportionate. Learned Standing Counsel is also not in a position to state as to how, after the concession now made on behalf of the petitioner workman, the punishment imposed by the appellate authority, as confirmed by the Labour Court, would still be justified. In the light of the concession made by the Learned Counsel (which is not seriously opposed by the Learned Sanding Counsel), and in order to give a quietus to the entire controversy, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondent – Corporation to compute the petitioner’s notional increments from the date of his removal from service till date, refix his salary accordingly from the date of this order, give him the benefit of continuity of service and pay him salary, in the refixed pay scales, from the date of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears of salary/arrears of increments or any other monetary benefit till the date of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________ 2-12-2010 asp [1] (2009) 15 SCC 620