B. VEERAPPA, J.

1. The Corporation filed the present writ petition against the award dated 30.01.2009 made in I.I.D. No. 48/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysuru, allowing the claim petition in part, whereby, the dismissal order passed by the petitioner management dated 04.01.1999 has set-aside entitling him for all the retiremental benefits and also continuity of service, without order for reinstatement, since he had attained superannuation and further treating the absence of the workman as absence on duty.

2. It is case of the petitioner corporation that the respondent workman was working as Traffic Inspector. He remained absent to duty from 22.06.1997. Therefore, Corporation issued call notice on 08.07.1997. Despite the same, respondent did not join for duty. Therefore, Corporation was constrained to issue article of charges on 23.09.1997 and when the respondent did not reply to the same, an enquiry officer was appointed who fixed the enquiry on 27.01.1998. Since the respondent did not turn up for enquiry, final notice was issued on 31.03.1998 fixing the date of enquiry on 13.02.1998. Since the respondent failed to appear, enquiry was conducted ex parte and the charges were held to be proved. After issuing second show cause, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the order of dismissal from service on 04.01.1999. Thereafter, respondent raised industrial dispute under Section 10(4)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act' for short) The Labour Court held that the preliminary enquiry was not fair and proper and therefore permitted the parties to adduce fresh evidence. Accordingly, workman examined himself as WW-1 and marked documents Exs.W-1 to W-49. The Management corporation examined two witnesses MW-1 and MW-2 and got marked Exs.M.1 to M.16. The Tribunal, considering the entire material on record, by the impugned award dated 30.01.2009 held that dismissal of the workman from service is erroneous. Therefore, exercising power under Section 11A of the I.D.Act, set-aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and held that since the workman has attained superannuation, he is net entitled to reinstatement, but is entitled for all retiremental benefits and also continuity of service and treated the absence as on duty. Hence the present writ petition is filed by the Corporation.

3. Service of notice to respondent is held sufficient.

4. Smt. S. Nirmala, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation vehemently contended that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. She contended that in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the respondent workman, he neither filed any objections to the article of charge nor participated in the enquiry proceedings. After giving sufficient opportunity, Corporation proceeded to hold that the absence of the respondent was wilful and therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit and the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. She further contended that all the documents produced by the respondent before the Tribunal were not genuine and medical certificates were bogus The Tribunal without considering the material on record, proceeded to pass the impugned award and therefore, sought to set-aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The only point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"

6. It is undisputed fact that the respondent was working as a traffic inspector in the petitioner Corporation, remained absent to duty from 22.06.1997. The Tribunal while considering the preliminary issue, has held that the domestic enquiry conducted is no', fair and proper. It is also not in dispute that respondent workman was born on 20.10.1941 and joined the service on 09.06.1977. He has worked in various places as checking officer and while wo