Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition is filed against the award of the Labour Court. 2. The second respondent was working as a Peon in the petitioner society. While so, from 24.7.1990 till February, 1991, he abstained voluntarily from attending duties. Even on earlier occasions, he abstained without prior permission. Action was taken against him and a warning was also given to him. Since he absented for more than seven months, he was terminated from service. The said termination was challenged by him before the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed the award, setting aside the termination order, and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent with back wages and all other attendant benefits. The said award is now challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.R. Rajasekaran brought to the notice of this Court the Rule 149 (10) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, which reads that “any employee absenting without any leave application or over setting leave beyond a period of two months shall be deemed to have resigned from the service of the society.” 4. Admittedly, this employee has absented himself from service from 24.7.1990 till February, 1991, which is more than two months and almost seven months. Therefore, the second respondent is deemed to have resigned his employment and there is no question of termination of his service. Though formal termination order was passed, it is only a voluntary resignation. It appears a paper publication was also given before the conduct of the enquiry. The Labour Court held that “no one is expected to look into the paper thinking that he will be losing his job.” The Labour Court further held that “unless and until the petitioner’s address is ascertained, there is no need for giving publicity in the Tamil Daily, as contended by the respondent.” The above conclusion of the Labour Court is perverse when an employee absents himself for duty, it is the responsibility of the employee to inform the reason for absence and his whereabouts. The employer is not duty bound to search for the employee. In this case, the employe r has also issued paper publication, which is a recognised mode of substituted service. But, the Labour Court has simply refused to consider these procedures usually adopted by all Courts, including the Labour Court (which is also provided for under C.P.C.). The employer is not duty bound to search for the employee. In this case, the employe r has also issued paper publication, which is a recognised mode of substituted service. But, the Labour Court has simply refused to consider these procedures usually adopted by all Courts, including the Labour Court (which is also provided for under C.P.C.). It also held that there was a domestic enquiry and the proceedings were marked and only afterwards, the impugned order has been passed. 5. In view of the Rule 149(10)(i), there is no need for the Society to conduct departmental enquiry before terminating the services of the employee. Yet, the Cooperative Society/petitioner herein has conducted a departmental enquiry and only then the termination order was passed. The setting aside of the order of termination by the Labour Court is unwarranted and perverse. Therefore, it is not legally sustainable. In view of Rule 149 (10) (i), a person is deemed to have resigned voluntarily on the completion of two months. Hence, he is not entitled for reinstatement or back wages. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The amount deposited, before the Labour Court can be withdrawn by the petitioner with accrued interest.