Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Management of Tuticorin Port Trust against the order dated 22.09.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.13634 of 1997 whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge while upholding the award dated 111. 1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in I.D.No.48 of 1992, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Management against the said award. 2. As the appeal can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one mentioned hereunder:- The workman A. Somasundaram, a member of Tuticorin Port Employees Organisation, was initially appointed as Mazdoor on 1. 1973, promoted as Cleaner on 6. 1975, and thereafter, promoted to the next higher post Assistant Mechanic on 110. 1979. He was unauthorisedly absent from duty on certain occasions during 1985 and 1986. He remained absent from duty since 29. 1986 and having not reported for about two months, he was directed to report duty on or before 12. 1986. Having not reported, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold an enquiry with regard to the unauthorised absence from duty for a period about six months. It appears that the Enquiry Officer gave him notice and asked him to appear in the enquiry, but it returned with the endorsement no such addressee. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that the workman is guilty. After publication in the newspaper on 5. 1987, the workman was dismissed from service by an order dated 6. 1987. The appeal having been rejected on the ground of delay, the Union took up the matter with the competent authority and on reference, I.D.No.48 of 1992 was registered in the file of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for adjudication of the following issue: "Whether the action of the management of Tuticorin Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri.A.Somasundaram is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?" 3. After hearing the parties, on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, answered the reference in favour of the workman, passed the impugned award on 111. If not, to what relief he is entitled?" 3. After hearing the parties, on appreciation of the evidence, the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, answered the reference in favour of the workman, passed the impugned award on 111. 1996 and held the order of termination passed by the Management as illegal and the Management was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service, backwages and all attendant benefits. 4. The award aforesaid having been challenged, after hearing the parties and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances, the learned single Judge upheld the award and dismissed the writ petition No.13634 of 1997 with the following observation:- "In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record, particularly the dismissal order of the petitioner/management, the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal preferred by the workman and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below, thereby setting aside the order of dismissal by the petitioner and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, this Court is able to see that the petitioner/management has neither examined any witness nor any document has been marked on the side of the petitioner/management either to substantiate the charge against the workman or to prove the unauthorised absence and therefore, it is clear that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner/management was not proper and in accordance with law as rightly arrived at by the learned Tribunal below. Further it is noticed that even in the publication the management has not specifically mentioned about the proposed punishment of dismissal against him so as to give an opportunity for the workman to put forth his case. Such a notice regarding the lack of proposed punishment is also against the principles of natural justice. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity or inconsistency or perversity in the award of the Tribunal below and this writ petition does not merit acceptance and it becomes only liable to be dismissed and hence the following order: In result, .(i) for the foregoing reasons assigned, this writ petition does not merit acceptance and is dismissed accordingly; .(ii) the impugned award dated 111. 1996, passed in I.D.No.48 of 1992 by the first respondent is confirmed; (iii) however, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs." 5. 1996, passed in I.D.No.48 of 1992 by the first respondent is confirmed; (iii) however, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs." 5. The Management/appellant while challenging the impugned judgment took a plea that the learned single Judge erred in consideration of the fact that the workman was absent continuously for more than 240 days and the silence of the workman in not responding to any of the communications had forced the Management to remove him from service. Though such plea has been taken, but, we are not inclined to go into the merit of the allegations as levelled against him in the charge sheet. 6. The allegation levelled in the charge sheet was that the workman was unauthorisedly absent from duty. Having made such allegation, it was incumbent on the part of the Enquiry Officer to come to a definite conclusion as to whether such unauthorised absence from duty amounted to misconduct or it was not intentional. If it would have been held that such unauthorised absence from duty amounted to misconduct, it was open to the management to punish the workman. For coming to such a definite finding, the Management/employer was supposed to cite evidence in support of charges, oral or documentary or both. In the present case, the Management has failed to cite name of any witness and/or documentary evidence. No such list of evidence was cited and provided to the charged employee nor brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Enquiry Officer had discussed any such oral or documentary evidence for coming to a definite conclusion that the charge of unauthorised absence from duty amounted to misconduct. The aforesaid fact has already been taken into consideration and discussed in detail by the Industrial Tribunal and the learned single Judge having noticed that there was no evidence in support of charges, refused to interfere with the award. 7. We find no merit in the appeal and thus, the prayer is rejected. The aforesaid fact has already been taken into consideration and discussed in detail by the Industrial Tribunal and the learned single Judge having noticed that there was no evidence in support of charges, refused to interfere with the award. 7. We find no merit in the appeal and thus, the prayer is rejected. As we find in the present case, during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman died and the legal heirs have been substituted, who are on record, the Management is well advised to pay the consequential benefits to the legal heirs in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, failing which, it would be open to the legal heirs to claim for penal interest from the due date till the amount is paid. The writ appeal is dismissed with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WAMP.No.1567 of 2006 is also dismissed.