Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Management challenging the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.57 of 1996. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is engaged in the business of providing security services to the public sector as well as the private sector companies and for individuals all over the State of Tamil Nadu. The workmen of the petitioner establishment are bound by the certified standing orders, which prescribes the terms and conditions of the employment. As per clause 5(a) of the certified standing orders, the employee, who is unauthorisedly absent for eight consecutive days, would automatically lose his employment. .4. It has been further stated that the second respondent had joined the service of the petitioner Company, on 28. 1992. He was promoted as an Assistant Security Officer, with effect from 5. 1995. His last drawn salary was Rs.1,130/-. From 7. 1995, the second respondent had absented himself from work without any prior permission from the petitioner Management. While so, a legal notice, dated 7. 1995, had been received by the petitioner Management wherein it has been stated that the second respondent was not given salary due to him. However, in the said notice, there was no explanation for the second respondents continued absence from 7. 1995. In such circumstances, the second respondent had lost his lien on his employment, in accordance with clause 5(a) of the certified standing orders applicable to him. The petitioner Management had conveyed the said fact to the second respondent by a letter, dated 17. 1995. By a letter, dated 20.7.1995, the second respondent had informed the petitioner Management that he was unwell from 7. 1995 and that he was taking medical treatment during the said period. He had also enclosed the medical certificate, along with the said order. In the letter sent by the second respondent, he had requested the petitioner Management to cancel the order of termination passed against him and to give him employment, along with the arrears of salary. 5. It has been further stated that since the explanation submitted by the second respondent was not satisfactory, the petitioner Management had sent the salary to the second respondent for the Month of June, 1995, by money order, on 27. 1995. 5. It has been further stated that since the explanation submitted by the second respondent was not satisfactory, the petitioner Management had sent the salary to the second respondent for the Month of June, 1995, by money order, on 27. 1995. On 18. 1995, the second respondent had sent a letter to the petitioner Management stating that he should be given employment with back wages. Thereafter, the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the labour officer-I, Madras, contending that his services were terminated by the petitioner Management and that he should be given the relief of reinstatement in service with back wages. Even though the petitioner Management had agreed to reinstate the second respondent in service, with regard to the payment of back wages the petitioner Management had refused to comply with the request of the second respondent, as the second respondent was not working during the relevant period. Thereafter, since the conciliation efforts had failed, the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent labour Court in I.D.No.57 of 1996. 6. On behalf of the second respondent, he had examined himself as a witness and marked Exhibits W.1 to W.8. On behalf of the petitioner Management the certified standing orders was marked as Exhibit M.1. By an award, dated 10. 2000, the first respondent labour Court had held that the non-employment of the second respondent employee was in violation of the principles of natural justice. As he was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case before his service was terminated, the termination of the second respondent from service was in violation of 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and therefore, the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified. Since the petitioner management had offered employment to the second respondent before the conciliation officer and as the said offer was rejected by the second respondent, he was entitled only to the back wages at 20% of his last drawn salary. In such circumstances, the petitioner management had challenged the said award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 10. 2000, by filing the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. In such circumstances, the petitioner management had challenged the said award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 10. 2000, by filing the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent labour Court had passed the award contrary to the well settled principles enshrined in the relevant laws applicable to the present case. The first respondent labour Court ought to have considered the contradictions in the claims made by the second respondent, as found in Exhibits W.2 and W.4. The first respondent labour Court had failed to appreciate that the second respondent employee had absented himself, voluntarily, and he was not interested in his employment and therefore, he had lost the lien on his employment, in accordance with Section 5(a) of the Certified Standing Orders. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the first respondent labour Court had also failed to appreciate the evidence placed before it to prove that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice by the petitioner management in terminating the service of the second respondent. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the first respondent labour Court had failed to appreciate that the issue of non-employment of the second respondent is due to his own fault and that it was not due to the petitioner management. The labour Court had also come to the wrong conclusion that the nonemployment of the second respondent was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Once it was found that the second respondent had rejected the offer of employment made by the petitioner Management, the first respondent labour Court ought not to have granted 20% as back wages to the second respondent, based on the last drawn salary. Even after the award has been passed by the first respondent, the petitioner Management had offered the employment to the second respondent, by a letter, dated 31. 2001. Since the second respondent had not reported for work, he is not entitled to any monetary benefits. .11. Even after the award has been passed by the first respondent, the petitioner Management had offered the employment to the second respondent, by a letter, dated 31. 2001. Since the second respondent had not reported for work, he is not entitled to any monetary benefits. .11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management had further submitted that since an offer had already been made to the second respondent for his reemployment, the award of the labour Court, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.57 of 1996, is not challenged insofar as it relates to the reinstatement of the second respondent in service. Further, the second respondent has not shown any interest in being reinstated in service, as he has not made any request after the award had been passed in his favour by the first respondent labour Court. However, with regard to the payment of backwages, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management had offered to pay Rs.5,000/- as full and final settlement in lieu of the amount of Rs.14,238/- awarded by the first respondent labour Court. 12. On a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that the first respondent labour Court did not have sufficient materials before it to conclude that the second respondent is entitled to the payment of the amount of Rs.14,238/-as backwages at 20% of his last drawn salary. Even though the petitioner Management had offered to re-employ the second respondent during the conciliation proceedings, as well as at the stage of the pendency of the industrial dispute before the first respondent labour Court, there is no justification for the first respondent labour Court to come to the conclusion that the second respondent is entitled to back wages at 20% of the last drawn salary. Further, sufficient reasons have not been shown for the first respondent labour Court to come to such a conclusion. In such circumstances, the award of the labour Court is modified only with regard to the payment of back wages to the second respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner Management is directed to pay the second respondent a sum of Rs.5,000/- instead of the amount of Rs.14,238/- awarded by the labour Court by its award, dated 10. 2000, made in I.D.No.57 of 1996, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed. 2000, made in I.D.No.57 of 1996, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.5358 of 2001 is closed. No costs.