M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. R. K. Mishra waives service of the Rules. Mr. Bachani, learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions from K. D. Pachigar, Chairman of chandravatiben Dhansukhlal Pachigar Public Charitable Trust, Surat who is present in the court states that the trust is prepared to settle the whole dispute with payment of two years backwages and the wages for the period from 13th September, 1995 till the date of the superannuation of the respondent workman in September, 1996 by computing the wages as if the services of the workman had never been terminated. This offer is also acceptable to Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent workman under instructions from his client Ramanlal Nathubhai Rana who is also present in the Court. Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 13. 9. 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in reference (LCS) No. 15 of 1993 is modified in the following terms and the terms as set out hereunder would govern the rights and obligations of the parties and that will be in full and final settlement of the whole dispute and the impugned Award dated 13. 9. 1995. (1) The petitioner trust shall pay wages of the respondent workman from 13. 9. 1995 till the date of his superannuation i. e. 30. 9. 1996 as if the respondent workman had never been terminated. The payment of this amount shall be made to the respondent workman by the petitioner trust by pay order/crossed cheque in the name of the respondent on or before 31. 8. 1997 and the respondent workman shall give a receipt to the petitioner in token of the said payment. (2) Two years backwages shall be paid by the petitioner trust to the respondent by computing his wages for the period two years preceding 13. 9. 1995 by computing the same at the rate at which he would have drawn these wages had he not been terminated. Payment of this amount shall be made within a period of four months from today i. e. on or before 14. 11. 1997 through pay order/cheque in the name of the respondent workman and the respondent workman shall also pass on a receipt in token of the same to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE award is hereby modified accordingly. Payment of this amount shall be made within a period of four months from today i. e. on or before 14. 11. 1997 through pay order/cheque in the name of the respondent workman and the respondent workman shall also pass on a receipt in token of the same to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE award is hereby modified accordingly. This Special Civil Application is partially allowed on the basis of the agreed terms as above. These terms shall be enforceable as if it is an order of this Court. Rule is made absolute in the terms as aforesaid. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. ( 3 ) MOMENT the dictation as above was over Mr. Bachani took a sudden somersault and stated that his clients are not agreeable and they seek to revoke the consent as above. He prayed that the matter may be heard on merits. It is therefore ordered that, the parties may proceed as if the above order was not passed. Accordingly, the matter was heard at length on merits. ( 4 ) MR. Bachani has concluded his arguments while Mr. Mishra has to reply on behalf of the respondent workman. Hearing shall continue tommorrow. 15th July, 1997. Mr. Mishra has concluded his reply and Mr. Bachani has argued in rejoinder thereto. ( 5 ) THE respondent workman was working as a Clerk with the petitioner trust in one of the Colleges run by the trust. He was initially appointed on 1. 9. 1986. The respondent workman had applied for leave on medical grounds vide his application dated 2. 4. 1992 addressed to the Principal of the College and leave on the medical grounds was sought for the period on and from 30. 3. 1992 to 5. 4. 1992. The respondent did not resume his duties even after the expiry of the aforesaid period for which he had applied for leave. He was to resume on 6. 4. 1992 but did not resume his duties on 6. 4. 1992 and sent another application requesting for leave on medical grounds from 6. 4. 1992 to 10. 4. 1992. The respondent did not join even on 11. 4. 1992 and sent application dated 16. 4. 1992 seeking extension of the leave. This application was received in the Office of the Principal on 18. 4. 4. 1992 and sent another application requesting for leave on medical grounds from 6. 4. 1992 to 10. 4. 1992. The respondent did not join even on 11. 4. 1992 and sent application dated 16. 4. 1992 seeking extension of the leave. This application was received in the Office of the Principal on 18. 4. 1992, The respondent requested that he was still feeling weakness and therefore he could not resume on 10. 4. 1992 and requested leave on medical grounds from 30. 3. 1992 to 13. 4. 1992. The respondent also sent Medical Certificate with his application dated 16. 4. 1992. As per the medical certificate the respondent was suffering from Malaria fever and Dysentery. As per the case of the petitioner the respondent had sent yet another application for leave on medical ground on 27. 4. 1992 which was received by the Principal on 27. 4. 1992. This application was for leave on medical grounds from 14. 4. 1992 to 25. 5. 1992. The respondent did not join his duties on 26. 5. 1992 and sent another leave application dated 22. 5. 1992 which was received by the Principal on 15. 6. 1992. The respondent had requested to sanction his leave on medical grounds for the period on and from 24. 5. 1992 to 14. 6. 1992. The respondent then resumed his duties on 15. 6. 1992. Whereas the respondent did not produce Medical Certificate for the period for which he had applied for leave on medical ground on 20. 6. 1992 the petitioner asked the respondent to produce the Medical Certificate in support of the leave which had been applied for. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent did not produce the Medical Certificate for the requisite period and he abstained from duties from 21. 6. 1992. As against this the case of the respondent is that the petitioner trust did not allow the respondent to continue him on job after 20. 6. 1992. The petitioner then issued show cause notice to the respondent on 7. 7. 1992 while the respondent had already sent a letter dated 30. 6. 1992 with a specific allegation that trustee Shri Krishnavadan Pachigar had threatened him to tender resignation which the petitioner had refused and hence the respondent was not allowed to perform his duties from 21. 6. 1992. 7. 1992 while the respondent had already sent a letter dated 30. 6. 1992 with a specific allegation that trustee Shri Krishnavadan Pachigar had threatened him to tender resignation which the petitioner had refused and hence the respondent was not allowed to perform his duties from 21. 6. 1992. It is the case of the petitioner itself that all the leave applications sent by the respondent were kept pending because the Medical Certificates were not accompanied with these applications. The same was considered as a breach of rule on the part of the respondent and in view of this a copy of this letter dated 30. 6. 1992 had also been sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Surat. The respondent had also sent reply to the show cause notice dated 7. 7. 1992 on 9. 7. 1992. The respondent had also sent the letter dated 8. 7. 1992 to the petitioner trust. ( 6 ) THE petitioners case is that notice dated 13. 6. 1992 had been sent by the respondent after 9. 7. 1992. It is also the case of the petitioner that copy of this letter dated 30. 6. 1992 was received by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 18. 8. 1992. The assistant Commissioner of Labour passed an order on 2. 3. 1993 and the reference was made to the Labour Court, Surat. The petitioner himself has stated in Para 9 of the petition that the Labour Court issued notice and the respondent to file the statement of claim in reference (LCS) No. 15 of 1993 on or before 12. 5. 1993 and the copy of the same was to be given to the petitioner. It is stated in Para 10 by the petitioner trust that as per the notice of the Labour Court the representative of the petitioner had remained present in the labour Court but there was no Presiding Officer and on inquiry from the Advocate it was given out that as and when the learned Judge would be appointed in the Labour Court the petitioner would be issued notice and thereafter the petitioner could remain present in the said case. It is then stated that representative of the petitioner then left the Court and the petitioner was waiting for the notice from the Court. It is then stated that representative of the petitioner then left the Court and the petitioner was waiting for the notice from the Court. It is also stated that the petitioner did not receive any statement of claim from the respondent which he was supposed to file on or before 12. 5. 1993. ( 7 ) THIS much is clear from the aforesaid pleadings that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent as to whether the petitioner had removed the respondent workman from the service by subjecting him to forced unemployment when he was not allowed to work from 21. 6. 1992 or as to whether the respondent himself had abandoned the job and the other controversy is as to whether the petitioner was right in abstaining from the proceedings before the Labour Court even after the service of the notice and even after presence of the petitioners representative in these proceedings before the labour Court in response to such notice. ( 8 ) THE dispute had been going on because the respondent workman had proceeded on leave from time to time and did not report on duty. The petitioner trust was pressing and calling upon the respondent to come and join the duties. On this fact, one thing is very clear that even after remaining on leave for some period the respondent workman had ultimately joined on 15. 6. 1992. It is only after 20. 6. 1992 that the dispute again errupted when the petitioner trust called upon the respondent to produce Medical Certificate and the respondent failed to produce the same and thereafter whether the petitioner trust did not allow the respondent to work from 21. 6. 1992 or the respondent gave up the job of his own by not reporting on duty from 21. 6. 1992. 6. 1992 or the respondent gave up the job of his own by not reporting on duty from 21. 6. 1992. ( 9 ) THE Labour Court has considered the entire material and has come to the conclusion that in the facts of the case even if the allegations of unauthorised absence are taken to be proved against the respondent and even if it is found that it was misconduct on his part that he failed to produce the Medical Certificate when the petitioner himself had given show cause notice to take disciplinary action, it was for the petitioner trust to take these allegations to its logical and by holding regular inquiry and to pass appropriate orders on conclusion of the inquiry. Admittedly, no inquiry worth the name was held except exchange of show cause notice to which reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order, the respondent workman was not allowed to work after 20. 6. 1992 merely because he did not produce the medical certificate. Non-production of the Medical Certificate by itself could certainly form a subject matter of allegation of unauthorised absence against the respondent. But that by itself could not be a ground to bring about cessation to the employment without proper inquiry. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it was a case of termination of services on the ground of misconduct without holding any inquiry. In such circumstances when the Labour Court itself has found that the respondent workman has been removed from service without holding any inquiry whatsoever on allegation of misconduct and has disbelieved the version of the petitioner trust that the respondent himself had abandoned and stopped coming on the job, such finding of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ of certiorari. The Labour Court has recorded the finding as aforesaid on the basis of the material and evidence which was placed before it. This finding after taking into consideration the relevant material and record, as has been recorded by the Labour Court, it is not open to be assailed before this Court in a writ of certiorari on the ground on which the same have been sought to be assailed by Mr. Bachani appearing for the petitioner trust. This finding after taking into consideration the relevant material and record, as has been recorded by the Labour Court, it is not open to be assailed before this Court in a writ of certiorari on the ground on which the same have been sought to be assailed by Mr. Bachani appearing for the petitioner trust. I do not find any error whatsoever either of fact or of law in any of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and there is no question of interfering with such an Award as has been passed in the instant case by the Labour Court. If the job is to be treated as abandoned on such ground, it would be giving a liver in to the hands of the employers to create such a situation as and when they want to get rid of any employee. There may be cases of misconduct resulting from unauthorised absence or of non-production of the Medical Certificate when the leave is taken on medical ground but such allegations have to be inquired into by holding proper and regular inquiry which was admittedly not done in the present case and hence the petitioner trust now cannot take advantage of its own lapse of not holding proper and regular inquiry and to convert the case of allegation of misconduct into that of voluntary abandonment of the job by the workman. The element of misconduct is different than the requirements set for the abandonment of the job. Moreover the correspondence to which I have made reference in the earlier part of the order also shows that the petitioner trust itself wanted to take disciplinary action against the respondent but instead of taking the disciplinary action adopted a convenient method of treating it to be a case of abandonment of job after 20. 6. 1992 and an unusual stand has now been taken that the petitioner did not pass any order 6f termination. Whether the order had been passed or not fact remains that effectively the respondent workman was made to face forced unemployment and cessation to his employment was brought about from 20. 6. 1992 when he was not allowed to continue in service although he had been earlier allowed on 15. 6. 1992 after remaining on leave on medical grounds. Whether the order had been passed or not fact remains that effectively the respondent workman was made to face forced unemployment and cessation to his employment was brought about from 20. 6. 1992 when he was not allowed to continue in service although he had been earlier allowed on 15. 6. 1992 after remaining on leave on medical grounds. In such circumstances, there is no basis before this Court to reverse any of the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the labour Court, while passing the impugned Award dated 13. 9. 1995. ( 10 ) SO far as other grievance of the petitioner trust that after the service of the notice at the very threshold of the proceedings when the representative of the petitioner went to attend the proceedings before the Labour Court it was found that the Court was vacant and that thereafter no notice for any further date was served and therefore, exparte Award dated 13. 9. 1995 should have been set aside. I have considered all the aspects of this contention also. Admittedly, notice of the proceedings in Reference (LCS) No. 15/93 had been served upon the petitioner trust and the representative of the petitioner trust had also remained present initially before the Labour Court. If there was no Presiding Officer that would not mean that the notice will be again issued to the parties. In this petition a bald statement has been made that on inquiry from Advocate it was given to understand that as and when the learned Judge would be appointed, at that time the petitioner would be issued notice and thereafter he may remain present in the said case. Such a situation is absolutely alien to all known norms of procedure and practice in the Court. Name of the Advocate has not been mentioned and in case the petitioner trust has made inquiries from anyone who has told him that they may come after the notice is served again, the petitioner trust has to thank itself. Notice of pending reference with due date had been sent and thereafter it was the duty of the representative of the petitioner trust or any Advocate engaged by them to attend the proceedings on all the dates and remain alive to the future dates, whether the respondent workman had filed a statement of claim on 12. 5. Notice of pending reference with due date had been sent and thereafter it was the duty of the representative of the petitioner trust or any Advocate engaged by them to attend the proceedings on all the dates and remain alive to the future dates, whether the respondent workman had filed a statement of claim on 12. 5. 1993 or not or as to whether he had filed such claim later on has nothing to do with the question of participation or otherwise by the petitioner trust in the proceedings. The representative of the trust or its counsel could have asked for such copy of the statement of claim at any time as and when same was filed or even before the matter was decided by the labour Court, had the trust remained vigilent to attend the proceedings on the dates. The reference remained pending from 1993 to 1995. If for such a long period the petitioner did not take care to participate in the proceedings or to know further progress or with regard to the coming of the new Presiding Officer in the Court, it cannot be said that the Award should stand vitiated on this ground. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find that the Labour Court had wrongly rejected the petitioner trusts review application which had been filed by it on 19. 12. 1995 which came to be rejected on 30. 8. 1996. The Labour Court while passing the order dated 30. 8. 1996 rejected the review application of the petitioner trust has given cogent reasons for rejection of this review application in paras 9 and 10. Reasons are quite convincing and are based on the established facts on record. Such an order rejecting the review application do not warrant any interference by this Court and I find that the proceedings cannot be unduly prolonged indefinitely merely because one party decided not to ramin alive to the proceedings despite service of notice and to take excuse that when they tried to attend the proceedings the Presiding Officer was not there and that they were waiting for another Presiding Officer to come and join and to serve the notice again. ( 11 ) MR. Bachani, learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited : [1] 1996 (3) GLR 113 (Sabhapati, Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad vs. Nathubhai ). ( 11 ) MR. Bachani, learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited : [1] 1996 (3) GLR 113 (Sabhapati, Nagar Panchayat, Karamsad vs. Nathubhai ). [2] AIR 1962 (Guj) Choksi Bhidarbhai Mathurbhai vs. Purshottamdas Bhogilal shah ). [3] AIR 1965 (Guj) 145 (Bail Chanchal vs. Ganpatram Jadavji ). [4] AIR 1982 (Pandh) 497 (Kalwa vs. Vasakha Singh ). [5] AIR 1979 (Allahabad) 333 (The Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Forward Markets Commission, Bombay ). [6] 1982 LAB I. C. 75 (State of Rajasthan vs. Bhanvar Lal and Anr.) ( 12 ) I have gone through the aforesaid decisions and same are not applicable to the facts of the present case and same are of no avail to the petitioner for the purpose of setting aside exparte award in the facts of the present. ( 13 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any basis either to interfere with the Award dated 13. 9. 1995 or with the order dated 30. 8. 1996 passed by the labour Court, Surat in Ref. (LCS) No. 15/93 and the Misc. Application No. 54/95 in Ref. (LCS) No. 15/93 respectively. There is no force in this Special Civil Application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. .