S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2-03-2005 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 3976 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the writ appeal filed by the Appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 11-06-2002 passed by a learned single Judge of the said High Court in W.P. No. 25259 of 1999 was dismissed.
(3.) The Respondent was working as a conductor. He remained unauthorisedly absent from 27-11-1990 to 02-12-1990. He did not report for duty with effect from 16-05-1992. His leave records were seen and it was found that he had repeatedly remained unauthorisedly absent. On the aforementioned charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was found guilty of commission of the said misconduct and was directed to be dismissed from service by an order dated 6-08-1994. He raised an industrial dispute in relation to the said order of dismissal from service culminating in a reference being made by the Government of Karnataka to Labour Court, Gulbarga for resolution of the said dispute. A preliminary issue was raised before the Labour Court and by a judgment and order dated 30-04-1996, it was found that the disciplinary proceedings held as against the Respondent was not fair and legal. The parties thereafter adduced their respective evidence before the Labour Court. By an award dated 28-06-1996, it was held that the Respondent remained absent from 27-11-1990 to 02-12-1993 and, thus, committed a misconduct. It was, however, opined: "23. In a normal course the reasonable punishment would be to disallow the back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. But in this case the D.E. has been set aside and the claimant has been granted interim relief. If the back wages and continuity of service are disallowed from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement the punishment would be somewhat unreasonable one. I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to disallow the back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal, i.e., 6-8-94 till the date of granting the interim relief, i.e., 29-1-95 as a lesser punishment." It was, however, directed: "The Respondent is directed to reinstate the claimant I-Party to his original post. The claimant I-Party is entitled for back wages at the rate of 75% of the wages what he was getting at the time of dismissal or 75% of the wages in the current rate whichever is more from the date of granting the interim relief 30-1-95. The claimant is deemed to have been continued in service from the said date. It is hereby ordered that the claimant I-Party is not entitled for back wages and continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., 6-8-94 to till the date of granting the interim relief i.e., 29-1-95 as a lesser punishment. I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs." ;