- (1.) HEARD Mrs. Anubha Rawat Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.2002 passed in CWJC No.1654/2001, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur. For better appreciation, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, is quoted herein below: "11.12.2002 Heard Mrs. AR. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Jai Prakash. learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 06.04.2000 (Annexure 8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, by reason whereof and taking into consideration the charge of habitual absenteeism he held that the punishment of dismissal from service was extremely harsh. Having held so the Labour Court directed reinstatement with back wages but did not grant any back wages or salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reference i,e., 21.08.1990, the date of dismissal (as is evident from page 40) to 19.06. 1992 (Annexure 5). In other words, he withheld the monetary benefits including salary and wages for about twenty two months. Considering the fact that the matter relates to absenteeism, this Court, therefore is also not inclined to interfere with the award, taking into consideration that the Labour Court himself has granted reinstatement without back wages for the aforementioned period which according to this Court is sufficient for the ends of justice. Apart from the aforesaid, it would be relevant to mention that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not exercise appellate jurisdiction. This Court does not find any gross illegality with the award. That apart in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Overseas Bank versus IOB Staff Canteen Workers Union and another reported in (2000) 4 S.C.C. 245; Bank of India and another Vs. Degala Surya Narayana. reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2407 and also in view of ratio decided in the case of Kashi Nath Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur reported in (2002) 1 J.L.J.R. 15, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Award. The Writ Petition is dismissed. After the aforementioned order was passed, Mrs. AR. Choudhary, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no willingness on the pact of the concerned workman to work. This Court is not in a position to make any observation on such submission of Mrs. AR. Choudhary, save and except giving liberty to the Management to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the concerned workman if he once again repeats the same act. 
(3.) MRS . Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that while passing the order of reinstatement, back wages ought not to have been granted. Learned counsel submitted that there is no willingness on the part of the concerned workman to work.;