Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-I) Limited (for short, the TNSTC), has preferred this Writ Appeal against the order dated 1. 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13343 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, while confirming the findings of the first respondent-Labour Court, Cuddalore in Award dated 12. 2001 passed in I.D.No.49 of 1996, the learned single Judge modified the Award and dis-allowed the back-wages for the period between 5. 1993 and 5. 1996 as was awarded by the first respondent-Labour Court. The impugned order of the learned single Judge to that extent was in favour of the appellant-Management of the TNSTC. 2. As the Writ Appeal can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one. 3. The second respondent-workman who as employed as a Driver in the appellant-TNSTC, was charge-sheeted by Memo dated 11. 1992 for two charges, viz., (i) absence without permission between 18. 1992 and 10. 1992 (period of about one month and 17 days) and (ii) continued absence without permission from 10. 1992 till the date of issuance of the charge memo dated 11. 1992 (comes to about one month). It was alleged that the above conduct of the second respondent-workman caused severe dislocation to the functions of the appellant-TNSTC. 4. In the domestic enquiry, the above said charges of absence from duty were found proved, due to which, by order dated 5. 1993, the second respondent-workman was dismissed from the services of the TNSTC. 5. The second respondent-workman raised an Industrial Dispute and on failure of conciliation, the dispute was registered as I.D.No.49 of 1996, wherein, the first respondent-Labour Court passed an Award in favour of the second respondent-workman, reinstating him into the services with full back-wages. 6. The learned single Judge, in the Writ Petition filed by the TNSTC, affirmed the Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement, but modified the part of the Award regarding the back-wages. 7. 6. The learned single Judge, in the Writ Petition filed by the TNSTC, affirmed the Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement, but modified the part of the Award regarding the back-wages. 7. Though learned counsel appearing for the appellant-TNSTC submitted that the past record of the second respondent-workman also shows that earlier he proceeded on leave for about 11 days in 1991; 167 days in 1992 and 59 days in 1993, but there is nothing on record to suggest that for such absence from duty, any proceedings were initiated, nor any punishment was inflicted upon him. If such absence from duty was otherwise recognised by the appellant-TNSTC, then such a ground cannot be taken into consideration for awarding the punishment of dismissal from services, as the present set of charges have not been found proved by the first respondent-Labour Court. 8. The second respondent-workman (caveator) appeared through counsel and contested the Writ Appeal. According to the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-workman, the terms of the Award of the first respondent-Labour Court, have already been implemented and the second respondent-workman was reinstated, who also retired from the services of the appellant-TNSTC. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. From the records, it would be evident that the second respondent-workman took a specific plea that he applied for leave on medical grounds, during which period, the charges were framed against him, and therefore, it was contended that the order of dismissal from service, was not justified in law. 11. The said claim of the second respondent-workman was resisted by the appellant-Management of TNSTC on the ground that mere submission of the leave application was not sufficient and he ought to have obtained prior permission from the TNSTC for availing of any leave, in order to justify his absence. 12. We are not inclined to accept such a submission of the TNSTC, as no person can ask for prior leave if he falls ill, as the illness does not come giving notice to a person. 13. Further, there being concurrent findings of facts with regard to the charges, both by the first respondent-Labour Court and the learned single Judge, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13343 of 2001, dated 1. 2008. 114. The appellant-TNSTC should implement the impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 1. 2008. 114. The appellant-TNSTC should implement the impugned order of the learned single Judge, dated 1. 2008, by paying him the back-wages as observed by the learned single Judge, within a period of one month from today, failing which the appellant-Management of TNSTC will be liable to pay the interest @ 8% from the date it fell due to the second respondent-workman till the due amount is paid. 115. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.