Judgment :- I.D. No. 308 of 1996 and quash its impugned Award dated 13. 1998. Both the writ petitions are directed against the same Award dated 13. 1998 made in I.D. No. 308 of 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore. While the Management, aggrieved against the Award for reinstatement of workman, filed W.P. No. 9705 of 1998, the workman has filed writ petition being W.P. No. 17244 of 1999 against the same Award in refusing to grant the relief of backwages and service continuity. 2. Pending the writ petitions, in the petition filed by the workman, the prayer for an interim direction to rejoin duty was refused. However, in the writ petition filed by the Management, this Court directed deposit of Rs. 32,500/-being the amount payable under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, I.D. Act] upto January 1998. Though the writ petitions were directed to be expedited, for unexplained reasons, they were not taken up. 3. Heard Mr. George Williams, learned counsel appearing for the workman and Mr. Karthik for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., learned counsel for the Management. 4. In the present writ petition, the workman was employed in the Thay Mudy Estate. He was a Graduate and his parents were also workers of the same Estate. He was employed from 011. 1991 but was not regular in his attendance. From 26. 1992, he abruptly stopped going to work without any leave application. The Management sent letters dated 011. 1992 and 30.11.1992 directing him to report for work. In the meanwhile, the workman asked for leave from 011. 1992 to 012. 1992 on the plea that his marriage arrangements were being done. His leave was not sanctioned and thereafter, he once again applied for leave from 011. 1992 to 012. 1992 and since he was absenting himself without sanction of leave right from 26. 1992, he was informed that his name was removed from the rolls w.e.f 20.01.1993. 5. Thereafter, the workman did not take up the issue but during July 1993, he submitted a letter to the Management to consider his case for a vacancy on the staff side. He was called for an interview on 30.8.1993 and he was not found suitable and he was also informed to that effect by a letter dated 30.9.1993. 5. Thereafter, the workman did not take up the issue but during July 1993, he submitted a letter to the Management to consider his case for a vacancy on the staff side. He was called for an interview on 30.8.1993 and he was not found suitable and he was also informed to that effect by a letter dated 30.9.1993. It was thereafter, the workman raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer alleging that he was working in the staff side but was paid workers wages and he was deputed to another estate, by name, Thirumurugan Tea Estate, for training and after completion of the training, when he came back to work as a field staff work was denied to him. 6. This contention of the workman was stoutly denied by the Management. The Management also stated that the fact that he had worked for two years in another estate was admitted by him and the Management was not responsible for his termination in that estate. 7. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and filed 10 documents which were marked as Exs. W.1 to W.10. On the side of the Management, two witnesses were examined and 23 documents were filed and were marked as Exs. 7.M.1 to M.23. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the statutory registers were not filed, it will lead to a definite conclusion that the workman was working as a Field Assistant and, therefore, he should be re-employed as a Field Assistant. The Labour Court rejected the stand of the Management that the workman had undergone training in some other estate. With reference to his absence, it held that as per Ex. M.10, he was directed to report for duty and as there was documentary proof produced, he was eligible for re-employment as a Field Assistant. As he had absented himself from 26. 1992, he was not entitled for backwages. 8. This approach of the Labour Court is impermissible. The issue before the Labour Court was whether the non-employment of the workman was justified or not. If it is found to be unjustified, then what relief should be granted by the Court. In the present case, the workman was absent without leave. There was no evidence to show that the petitioner was employed as a Field staff. The issue before the Labour Court was whether the non-employment of the workman was justified or not. If it is found to be unjustified, then what relief should be granted by the Court. In the present case, the workman was absent without leave. There was no evidence to show that the petitioner was employed as a Field staff. In the absence of any records, the Labour Court cannot presume the status of the workman on the basis of his oral statement. There is also no sufficient explanation about the petitioners absence. His having failed in the staff selection and that his undergoing training in some other estate was also not properly considered by the Labour Court. 9. In the light of the materials placed before the Labour Court, it is clearly seen that the workman is not eligible for any relief since his unauthorized absence was admitted by him. Even though some leave letters were sent, they were not sanctioned by the Management. Further, in a dispute under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, the question of status of the workman cannot be gone into. In the present case, there is no evidence that the workman was treated as a field staff. On the contrary, he was paid wages as a worker. 10. In view of the above, the impugned Award of the Labour Court will stand set aside and the writ petition filed by the Management being W.P. No. 9705 of 1998 will stand allowed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the workman in W.P. No. 17244 of 1999 will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.