Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 212. 98, made in I.D.No.73 of 1997. 3. It has been stated that the second respondent was employed as a salesman under the petitioner Bank, from 25. 85. While so, on 112. 93, he had absented himself without intimating the management of the petitioner Bank. Since the second respondent was responsible for the distribution of essential commodities in the shop run under the Public Distribution Scheme, the residents of Sukkankudi Village were put to great hardship. Since the second respondent had not reported for duty, the shop had to be opened by breaking open the lock. On verification of the stock available at the shop, it was found that there was some shortage in the stocks of certain essential commodities, the value of which had amounted to Rs.24,482.80/-. The second respondent had also removed the handbooks, chita books, bill books, distribution books etc., to conceal the misappropriation of essential commodities. Therefore, the petitioner Management had suspended the second respondent from service, on 293. Even thereafter, the whereabouts of the second respondent was not known, as the second respondent had absconded. Therefore, he was removed from service, on 5. 94, for the gross misconduct committed by him. 4. It has been further stated that the second respondent had challenged the order, dated 5. 94, removing him from service, by raising an industrial dispute before the first respondent Labour Court. The petitioner Management had contended that since the respondent was absconding from 112. 93 to 5. 94, and since his whereabouts were not known he was removed from service without conducting a domestic enquiry. The petitioner management had requested the first respondent Labour Court for a fresh opportunity to prove the misconduct of the second respondent. Therefore, since the request of the petitioner Management was allowed, the petitioner Management had marked Exhibits M-1 to M-7 and the Secretary of the Bank was examined on behalf of the petitioner Management. The second respondent employee had marked Exs.E1 to E4, and he examined himself to prove his case. Three charges had been framed against the second respondent employee. The first charge was that the second respondent had absented himself from duty from 112. 93, without the prior permission from the petitioner Management. The second respondent employee had marked Exs.E1 to E4, and he examined himself to prove his case. Three charges had been framed against the second respondent employee. The first charge was that the second respondent had absented himself from duty from 112. 93, without the prior permission from the petitioner Management. The second charge was that the employee had removed the account books, bill books and other connected ledgers used for the maintenance of stocks. The third charge was that there was a short fall of essential commodities amounting to Rs.24,4880. After analysing the evidence available, the first respondent Labour Court had come to the erroneous conclusion that the charges were not proved since the petitioner Management had not sent any prior intimation to the second respondent before breaking open the lock in the shop. The first respondent Labour Court had also held that the shortage of stocks amounting to Rs.24,482.80 and the removal of the records could not be proved since none of the witnesses, who had signed in the mahazar, were examined. Further, the sales person, who took charge of the shop, on 212. 93, had also not been examined. 5. No counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the second respondent. 6. On a perusal of the award of the first respondent Labour Court, it is seen that the charges levelled against the second respondent were held as not proved. The petitioner Management had been given sufficient opportunity to let in evidence, both oral as well as documentary, to prove the said charges. The Labour Court had passed the award in favour of the second respondent employee since it was found that no prior intimation was given to him before breaking open the lock of the fair price shop concerned. Further, the witnesses, who had signed the mahazar, had not been examined. Further, it was found that the person, who took the charge of the shop on 212. 93, after breaking open the lock of the fair price shop, had not been examined. In such circumstances, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the second respondent employee had not been sufficiently proved to hold him responsible, either for the shortage of the stock or for the loss of the books and other ledgers. In such circumstances, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the second respondent employee had not been sufficiently proved to hold him responsible, either for the shortage of the stock or for the loss of the books and other ledgers. Since the petitioner Management had not proved the charges alleged against the second respondent employee, the first respondent Labour Court had come to the conclusion, based on the available evidence, that his dismissal from service is invalid, and therefore, the first respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 212. 98, in I.D.No.73 of 1997, to reinstate the second respondent in service, with backwages, with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the petitioner Management has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, dated 212. 98, made in I.D.No.73 of 1997. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.1933 and 23766 to 23768 of 2003, stand closed.