Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division.III) Limited, Kancheepuram, challenging the award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, dated 28. 2000, in I.D.No.484 of 1998, reinstating the second respondent in service, with continuity of service and with 50% backwages, along with the other attendant benefits. 3. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent was employed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation. While in service, the second respondent had absented himself from work between 13. 1996 and 15. 1996, without prior permission from the petitioner Corporation and also without applying for leave, thereby, causing revenue loss to the petitioner Corporation. Charges were framed against the second respondent and the charge memo had been received by him, on 15. 1996. Even after the receipt of the said charge memo, the second respondent had not submitted an explanation. Therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered and the second respondent was given ample opportunity to defend his case. Even after the notice regarding the enquiry had been issued to the second respondent, he had not participated in the domestic enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry officer, based on the complaint and the relevant records, had held that the charges against the second respondent had been sufficiently proved. Based on the enquiry report, dated 30.5.1997, a second show cause notice, dated 17. 1997, had been issued, along with the enquiry report. After receipt of the said notice, the second respondent had submitted his explanation, on 9. 1997. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the second respondent, the petitioner Corporation had passed the order of dismissal, dated 29. 1997. 4. The petitioner has further stated that the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute, challenging the order of dismissal, in I.D.No.484 of 1998, before the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the first respondent herein, seeking reinstatement, continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits. During the proceedings before the first respondent Labour Court, the petitioner corporation had marked Exhibits M.1 to M.9. During the proceedings before the first respondent Labour Court, the petitioner corporation had marked Exhibits M.1 to M.9. The first respondent Labour Court, without analysing the documents and the evidence available, had erroneously come to the conclusion that the dismissal order passed against the second respondent was bad and the enquiry conducted by the petitioner Management against the petitioner was contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Labour Court had passed the award reinstating the second respondent in service, with continuity service and with 50% backwages, along with the other attendant benefits. In such circumstances, the petitioner Corporation had filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that the award passed by the labour Court, on 28. 2000, is not supported by sufficient material evidence. The labour Court had failed to appreciate the explanation submitted by the second respondent, on 9. 1997, in its right perspective. The labour Court ought to have seen that even though ample opportunity was given to the second respondent to participate in the domestic enquiry, he had failed to avail the opportunity without a proper reason. In spite of the fact that the second respondent had absented himself from duty for the period from 13. 1996 to 15. 1996, the labour Court had erroneously passed an award in favour of the second respondent reinstating him in service with 50% backwages and other attendant benefits. 5. The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, namely, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Divn.III) Ltd., Kancheepuram, in W.P.M.P.No.18467 of 2003, in W.P.No.3678 of 2001, read as follows: "3. I submit that the petitioner herein was employed as a conductor in the first respondent corporation and during his service, he absented himself from 13. 1996 to 15. 1996 without any prior permission from the corporation. For his unauthorised absence, charges were framed and enquiry was conducted. After observing all formalities as per the due process of law, dismissal order was passed on 29. 1997. Against the said order of dismissal, he raised I.D.No.484 of 1998 before the second respondent herein seeking the relief of reinstatement, continuity of service, back-wages and other benefits. Without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the labour Court passed the award to the effect of reinstatement with 50% backwages and other attendant benefits. 4. 1997. Against the said order of dismissal, he raised I.D.No.484 of 1998 before the second respondent herein seeking the relief of reinstatement, continuity of service, back-wages and other benefits. Without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, the labour Court passed the award to the effect of reinstatement with 50% backwages and other attendant benefits. 4. I submit that aggrieved by the award of the labour Court, the respondent herein filed the above writ petition on 22. 2001 and this Honble Court granted interim stay on 22. 2001 in WMP No.5110 of 2001. This Honble Court made the stay absolute on 13. 2003 on the condition to deposit 50% back-wages before the labour Court. As per the direction, the respondent corporation deposited Rs.72,195/- being the 50% back-wages on 24. 2003. 5. I submit that even before filing the writ petition, the reinstatement order was passed on 112. 2000 appointing him at Ponneri Branch. The workman himself received the order. Subsequently, as per the request of the individual, he was posted at Chingleput Branch on 212. 2000. After receipt of the order, the workman joined the branch, on 212. 2000. After joining duty, the workman absented himself from 9th January, 2001, onwards. 6. I further submit that for his continuous absence from the duty, charge memo has been framed, enquiry was conducted and finally he was removed from service by order dated 21. 2002. Since the workman himself abandoned the service without any prior permission, the above named petitioner is not entitled to seek any indulgence from this Honble Court for a direction to pay the last drawn wage commencing from September 2000, till the disposal of the above writ petition." 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation had submitted that this Court had granted interim stay of the impugned award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 28. 2000, by its order, dated 22. 2001, in W.M.P.No.5110 of 2001. The interim order was made absolute, on 13. 2003, on condition that the petitioner Corporation deposits 50% backwages before the first respondent labour Court. The amount of Rs.72,195/-, being 50% of the backwages, had been deposited by the petitioner Corporation, on 24. 2003, as directed by this Court. Thereafter, the second respondent was reinstated by an order, dated 112. 2000, appointing him at Ponneri Branch. 2003, on condition that the petitioner Corporation deposits 50% backwages before the first respondent labour Court. The amount of Rs.72,195/-, being 50% of the backwages, had been deposited by the petitioner Corporation, on 24. 2003, as directed by this Court. Thereafter, the second respondent was reinstated by an order, dated 112. 2000, appointing him at Ponneri Branch. Subsequently, as per the request of the second respondent, he was posted at Chingleput Branch, on 212. 2000. After joining duty, on 212. 2000, the second respondent had absented himself from 1. 2001 onwards. Thereafter, a charge memo had been issued against the second respondent for his continuous absence from duty. An enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service by an order, dated 21. 2002. 7. It has been further submitted that the second respondent having absented himself from service, without any prior permission, is not entitled to seek the indulgence from this Court praying for a direction for the payment of last drawn wage, commencing from the month of September, 2000, till the disposal of the writ petition. In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation had submitted that the writ petition may be closed as no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation. However, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had prayed that the second respondent may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited as back wages, in accordance with the interim order passed by this Court, on 13. 2003, in W.M.P.No.5110 of 2001, W.M.P.No.30057 of 2002 and W.V.M.P.No.697 of 2002 in W.P.No.3678 of 2001. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and taking into consideration the subsequent events that had taken place, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and taking into consideration the subsequent events that had taken place, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. However, in view of the specific request made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, it is made clear that it is open to the second respondent to approach the first respondent labour Court, by filing an appropriate petition/application for withdrawing the amount deposited by the petitioner Corporation to the credit of I.D.No.484 of 1998, as back wages due to the petitioner. On such petition/application being filed, the first respondent labour Court is to pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously. With the above observation, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.