R.S. Chauhan, J.

1. With the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided at this stage itself.

2. Being aggrieved by the award dated 30-6-2011 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, whereby the learned Labour Court has set aside the dismissal order dated 24-7-2010 passed against the respondent workman, and has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent workman, with continuity of service, and with a direction to pay 50% of backwages from the date of dismissal till he is reinstated into service and to give other consequential benefits, and with a direction to treat the period of his absence from 25-3-2009 to 16-4-2010 as any kind of leave to the credit of the workman, and in case, he has no leave at his credit, the same to be treated as leave without pay, the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation has approached this Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that in 2003 the respondent workman was appointed as a Driver in the petitioner corporation. From 2003 to 2010, he worked to the satisfaction of the petitioner corporation. However, he was allegedly absent from his duties from 25-3-2009 to 16-4-2010. Therefore, the petitioner had served a charge-sheet upon him. After holding a due enquiry, by order dated 24-7-2010, the respondent workman was dismissed from his service.

4. Since the respondent workman was aggrieved by the order dated 24-7-2010, he filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987) Act, 1947, (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner corporation filed its objection to the pleadings. The learned Labour Court framed three issues as under:

"1. Whether the enquiry held against the 1st party is fair and proper?

2. Whether the respondent-management is justified in dismissing the petitioner-claimant from service by its order dated 24.7.2010?

3. If not to what relief the claimant-petitioner is entitled?"

5. The Labour Court gave a categorical finding that the enquiry held by the petitioner was an unfair and improper one. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to lead evidence to establish its case against the respondent workman. The petitioner examined the Depot Manager, M.W.1. The respondent workman examined himself as W.W.1 and submitted six documents to support his case. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award. Hence, this petition before this Court.

6. Mrs. Veena Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to medical certificate issued by the Dr. Sharad G. Inamdar, the petitioner was well enough to join the service of petitioner corporation on 10-4-2010. Yet, he did not join the service till 16-4-2010. Therefore, he has not offered a proper explanation for his absence of seven days. Hence, the petitioner was justified in dismissing the respondent from service.

Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the Management is required to send the Labour and Welfare Officer to the residence of the workman to enquire regarding the reason as to why the workman failed to attend duty for long time. Yet, the Labour Court has concluded that it was the duty imposed upon the Management, but the Management has failed to discharge its duty.

Lastly, according to the previous record of the respondent workman, he has been absent on four different occasions earlier. Yet, the Labour Court has ignored this piece of evidence while passing the impugned award. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with.

7. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, the petitioner has victimised the respondent workman since the workman was the member of the trade union, since he had complained to the Lokayukta against his superior officers. Since on the basis of his complaint, first information report was registered against the superior off