( 1 ) THE respondent of Special Civil Application No. 4711 of 1998 has preferred this Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 2. 11. 1998.

( 2 ) SHORT facts, as it emerges from the record, are as under :-2. 1 the appellant was a workman discharging his duties as a Conductor with the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [for brevity, GSRTC]. He was charge sheeted for wilful absence for a period from 6. 1. 1994 to 23. 1. 1994. The appellant came out with a case that he had some abdominal pain and fever which was certified by one Doctor, and therefore, could not attend the duties. The Disciplinary Authority, on examination of the medical certificate found that the certificate is not reliable. It was pointed out that the certificate is not acceptable as there is a correction in the date and that the certificate was obtained after the notice was issued to him. GSRTC also pointed out before the Inquiry Officer that the Workman is well conversant with regard to the rules regarding leave and he could have conveyed the information about sickness soon after he fell sick if he was genuinely sick. The Inquiry Officer, on examination of the records, found that on 16 occasions, the appellant remained absent without prior permission and thus he was found to be a habitual absentee. The services of the appellant, were therefore, terminated. The appellant approached the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV No. 1187/94) which passed an order of reinstatement with 50% backwages. The appellant challenged the said order by preferring SCA No. 3650/98. GSRTC challenged the order by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4711 of 1998. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition [sca No. 3650/98] preferred by the appellant. However, learend Single Judge allowed SCA No. 4711/98 preferred by GSRTC and quashed and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court.

( 3 ) IT is required to be noted that looking to the nature of service, if the appellant was not on duty, GSRTC was unable to operate buse in charge of the appellant on a routes in the absence of the appellant, a Conductor. It was also found that in the past also, he used to remain absent and schedule was required to be cancelled for which a small amount of fine was imposed which was recovered from his salary. Learned Single Judge found that despite the misconduct in past, opportunities were repeatedly given but he did not improve. Learned Single Judge, on going through the award found that it is a case of willful absence which amounts to misconduct. When the Medical certificate indicates vaguely that he was suffering from abdominal pain and fever without giving any details and that too after the notice was given to him, the authorities did not accept the same more particularly as there was a correction in the date. The authorities found that the medical certificate is not reliable. The Labour Court was required to assign reasons while interfering with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority including that of punishment. Before the Inquiry Officer, opportunity was given to the appellant to examine witnesses. The appellant could have examined the Doctor to prove that he was sick. If the certificate was accepted by the authority on presentation, then there was no question of holding an inquiry. Inquiry was held because the certificate was not accepted by the authorities, and therefore, it was the duty of the appellant to examine the Doctor with a view to prove that he was infact sick. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Inquiry Officers report clearly indicates that the appellant was found remaining absent on number of occasions and the same has been accepted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has specifically observed, after referring to various incidents for remaining absent without leave that "this workman has a habit of remaining absent without previous leave; In case if he was sick, he does not care to convey the same