The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the misconduct, and failure to consider relevant evidence can influence the court's decision.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the first respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation challenging the award of the labour Court, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998. It has been stated that the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.811 of 1998, under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the file of the second respondent, to set aside the order of dismissal passed against the first respondent on the ground that the said order is contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. He had prayed for reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. According to the first respondent, he had joined as a Conductor in the service of the petitioner Corporation in the year 1973. He was dismissed from service, after an enquiry had been conducted against him. Thereafter, based on a settlement concluded, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he was reemployed, as a new entrant, as a helper with a consolidated salary of Rs.500/-. However, he had gone on leave, as he was injured while working in the Tyre Retread Department. He had sent a medical certificate and a letter requesting for medical leave. A show cause notice, dated 9. 1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent had submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. Not being satisfied by the explanation submitted by the first respondent, the Management of the petitioner Corporation had dismissed him from service from 20.9.1996.

.3. It has been further stated that the petitioner Corporation had filed a detailed counter statement in I.D.No.811 of 1998. In the said counter statement, it was contended that the first respondent was employed as a Conductor. He was dismissed from service based on the charges of collecting less fare from the passengers and causing loss, vide order, dated 8. 1992. Subsequently, he was reemployed as a helper, with effect from 2. 1993, pursuant to the settlement concluded, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent had submitted his explanation stating that he was absent from duty on medical grounds for the period from 27. 1994. He was granted leave till 29. 1994. Thereafter, a telegram had been sent to him directing him to report for duty and informing that the medical leave cannot be granted beyond 29. 1994. Even thereafter, the first respondent had absented himself, continuously, without leave and without permission, till 9. 1995. Hence, a charge memo, dated 9. 1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent had submitted his reply, dated 9. 1995.

4. It has been further stated that since the explanation submitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted against him, based on the charges levelled against the first respondent. The enquiry officer had submitted his report, dated 11. 1995, holding that the charges against the first respondent were proved. A second show cause notice, dated 11. 1995, had been issued to him. The first respondent had submitted his reply, on 20.3.1996. Since the explanation submitted by the first respondent was not satisfactory, he was dismissed from service, on 20.9.1996. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order dismissing him from service, the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the second respondent labour Court, in I.D.No.811 of 1998. The second respondent labour Court, without considering the evidences on record, had passed the award, dated 6. 2002, made in I.D.No.811 of 1998, setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 20.9.1996, and had directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent, without backwages, with continuity of service and other benefits, by awarding the lesser punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, with cumulative effect.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 6. 2002, made in