applied for leave and has not intimated his absence to the Management and he has allowed the bus to run without Conductor, which has resulted inconvenience to the passengers and also to the Driver. The bus, which was scheduled upto Nagarcoil, was forced to stop at Tirunelveli for want of Conductor and alternative bus was arranged to the passengers, which caused loss of reputation to the Management. Without considering all these facts, the Labour Court has simply relied on the out-patient sheet which has been relied by the second respondent that there was a reason for his absence during duty and has set aside the order of punishment. The absence of duty is an admitted one in this case and there is a dereliction of duty, for which, a linear punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect was imposed on the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that apart from this delinquent, the second respondent has also involved in 16 other misconducts, for which, he has been imposed with punishment. Further, he submits that this order of punishment was imposed in the year 2010 and it was challenged only in the year 2017 and the same
