JUDGMENT :

B.V. Nagarathna, J. - This writ appeal has been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court pursuant to order dated 13.04.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5236/ 2017 [SLP (Civil) No. 30310/2014], The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:

"Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 5th August, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that after setting out the facts of the case and after examining the point urged before the Labour Court and the learned single Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court did not give any reason while dismissing the appeal.

In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court for deciding afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

The appeal succeeds and is allowed in the above terms.

The amount deposited by the appellant Corporation in the Registry of this Court, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court shall be remitted back to the High Court and the parties shall abide by the decision of the High Court."

2. In the circumstances, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent at length and perused the material on record.

3. Briefly stated the facts are:

The respondent was an employee of the North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation who was working as driver at Hospet Depot. He was served with an article of charge dated 18.12.1998 alleging that he remained un authorisedly absent from duty for three months from 13. 09.1998 to 14.12. 1998, to which he submitted reply stating that he was suffering from illness and even though he sent leave applications along with medical certificate for grant of leave to the Depot Manager, same were not considered. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the said reply, initiated departmental enquiry and after conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer held respondent guilty of the charge. Accepting the said findings, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service keeping in view the respondent's past default history.

Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 69/2003. After contest, the Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 09.08.2004 allowed the claim petition and set aside the order of dismissal and since the respondent had attained the age of superannuation, directed the appellant Corporation to treat the period of absence of respondent as on duty and awarded 75% of backwages to the respondent.

Challenging the said award, the Corporation preferred Writ Petition No. 15427/2005 [L-KSRTC], Learned single Judge by order dated 15.01.2013 dismissed the writ petition confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the Corporation.

4. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned single Judge has found that unauthorised absence for a period of three months should not have been meted with the punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal rightly modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority directing reinstatement with 75% of back wages and withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that award of back wages of 75% was on the higher side. It should have been only 50% if the learned single Judge was right in otherwise confirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal. He submitted that once the charges have been proved, the award of backwages does not arise and that in the instant case, it is 75% which is exorbitant and therefore, at least on that aspect of the matter, this Court may interfere in the appeal.

6. Per contra, lea