JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner was employed by the respondent Corporation as a Conductor and was confirmed in service with effect from 4th December 1979. His service record appears to be not satisfactory in respect of his attendance. It is borne out from the record that he remained unauthorisedly absent from 1-1-1984 to 30th March 1984 and for second time from 1-12-1984 to 8-3-1985. By a show cause notice dated 19th March 1985, the petitioner was called upon to explain his absence of 98 days which was without prior intimation and without sanction. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not be treated as having lost lien over the employment under the standing orders for having remained absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days. In the said show cause notice it was also clearly mentioned in Marathi that he should remain present before the enquiry along with whatever documents in support of his case he had. He was also made aware that he should submit his explanation at the time of enquiry and also he should make whatever oral submissions he wanted to make. This notice was pasted on the door of the petitioner as the person who had gone to serve the said notice was told that the petitioner was out of town. It appears that the pasting of the said show cause notice was done and a panchanama was also prepared for such pasting. It is clear from the record that in spite of the said show cause notice, the petitioner did not care to report on duty and continued to remain absent as a result of which his services were terminated by an order dated 22-8-1985 with effect from 19-8-1985. The petitioner, thereafter, appears to have sent a letter dated 23-11-1987 along with two medical certificates. In the said application it was mentioned that from 1-12-1984 he was mentally not well and was in the hospital and therefore, he should be allowed to join his duties. It appears that the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties as his services were already terminated with effect from 22-8-85. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and the same was referred for adjudication to First Labour Court, Pune. It appears that the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties as his services were already terminated with effect from 22-8-85. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and the same was referred for adjudication to First Labour Court, Pune. The petitioner filed his statement of claim wherein he put forward the plea of his illness from 1-12-1984 to 21-11-1987. He also made a grievance in the statement of claim that when he had reported for duty with the said medical certificates he was not allowed to join his duties. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The respondent Corporation filed its written statement and opposed petitioner's claim. It also pointed out his unauthorised absenteeism and also the issuance of show cause notice and put forward its case that his services were terminated by an order dated 22-8-1985 as there was repeated and prolonged absenteeism on the part of the petitioner and there was no intimation or any application requesting for leave along with medical certificate. In the aforesaid background the respondent prayed for rejection of the reference. It is further pertinent to note that a specific plea was taken by the respondent Corporation that since there was no reply to the show cause notice given to the petitioner, no enquiry was held and that holding of an ex parte enquiry would have been only an empty formality on the part of the Corporation. It was further pleaded that if the Court came to a conclusion that such an enquiry was necessary in that case it should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Labour Court and to justify its action of termination of the petitioner. It appears from the record that respondent Corporation adduced oral evidence before the Labour Court to justify its action. The petitioner was given an opportunity to adduce his evidence. In rebuttal he filed purshis stating that he did not want to lead evidence in support of his claim. It is thus crystal clear that the evidence led by the Corporation has gone totally unchallenged and the petitioner has not proved his case of absence for illness by doing nothing in the matter. In rebuttal he filed purshis stating that he did not want to lead evidence in support of his claim. It is thus crystal clear that the evidence led by the Corporation has gone totally unchallenged and the petitioner has not proved his case of absence for illness by doing nothing in the matter. The least which he could have done was to enter in the witness box and to say on oath why he was absent and he could have sworn that he was ill through out the period of absence and was in hospital under medical treatment. He could have produced the medical certificates so that he could have some material on record to justify his case of absenteeism for the reasons beyond his control. By avoiding to step in the witness box, the petitioner has utterly and miserably failed to prove his case and has lost entirely the opportunity before the Labour Court. 2.In view of this it is clear that the petitioner might not have been ill and he might not have been hospitalised, otherwise even an illiterate workman would take a bare minimum care to show the hospital records to the Labour Court. Having not done so, there is a sufficient ground to draw an inference that the petitioner was not ill and was not hospitalised at all. The Corporation was fully justified in terminating his services by order dated 22-8-1985. The action of the Corporation cannot be said to be unfair labour practice or an act of victimisation or in any way mala fide. The Corporation having sufficiently tolerated the employee for his long unexplained and unauthorised delay, was left with no alternative but to terminate his services by an order of termination dated 22-8-1985. The petitioner's efforts to send the so called application along with the so called medical certificates along with the letter dated 23-11-1987 are futile and have absolutely no legal consequences. As I have already observed, the least that the workman could have done was to step in the witness box and to say on oath that he was ill from 1-12-1984 to 8-3-1985 and thereafter. It is also significant to note that from the beginning of the 1984 till 20th March 1984 he was absent. As I have already observed, the least that the workman could have done was to step in the witness box and to say on oath that he was ill from 1-12-1984 to 8-3-1985 and thereafter. It is also significant to note that from the beginning of the 1984 till 20th March 1984 he was absent. He was employed as a Conductor and according to me, it was a part of essential services rendered to the public by the Corporation, which could not afford to tolerate such an employee to remain absent continuously without any prior intimation and without any sanctioned leave. The petitioner atleast owed a duty to the Corporation to have informed about his illness if at all he was ill. According to me, no reasonable man would sit quiet for years together and will not approach his employer without some sort of explanation for his absence on account of illness which was beyond his control. According, to me, the Corporation had absolutely no option or alternative but to terminate his services and employ someone else in his place as a Conductor as the post could not be kept vacant for long period. 3.I, therefore, do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of termination dated 22-8-1985 passed by the Corporation and also there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court while rejecting the reference. 4.In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----