ORDER : J. Nisha Banu, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the award dated 30.01.2010 in I.D. No. 3/1996 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is a Textile Mill engaged in Spinning Cotton Yarn. The 2nd respondent was one of the employees of the petitioner establishment and while he was working in the spinning department, it came to the notice of the petitioner management that the 2nd respondent has printed bogus canteen coupons and was illegally with ulterior motive distributing them to the workers and thereby caused loss to the canteen. Therefore, a detailed charge memo dated 12.01.1995 was served on the 2nd respondent directing him to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action shall not be initiated against him. On receipt of the charge memo, the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 20.01.1995 requested the petitioner to furnish 7 documents to submit his explanation and vide another letter dated 27.01.1995 requested the petitioner to furnish further particulars. According to the petitioner, the documents required by the 2nd respondent were not relevant, however, the same namely, basic report of the charge memo and photocopy of original coupon and bogus coupon printed by him were sent to him vide letter dated 25.01.1995. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 10.02.1995 submitted his explanation which was duly considered by the petitioner and vide letter dated 16.02.1995, the 2nd respondent was directed to submit further detailed explanation. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 16.02.1995 approached the Conciliation Officer invoking Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, stating as if he reported for duty on 13.02.1995, but was not permitted to work and refused employment. According to the petitioner, neither the 2nd respondent did report for duty on the said date nor the petitioner refused employment. However, the Conciliation Officer erroneously took cognizance of the 2nd respondent letter under Section 2-A and submitted failure report dated 15.09.1995. The petitioner would contend before the Conciliation Officer that the 2nd respondent was not terminated and disciplinary action was pending and therefore, the 2nd respondent was given employment without prejudice to the disciplinary action, but the 2nd respondent did not agree for the same. The petitioner would contend before the Conciliation Officer that the 2nd respondent was not terminated and disciplinary action was pending and therefore, the 2nd respondent was given employment without prejudice to the disciplinary action, but the 2nd respondent did not agree for the same. The disciplinary action could not be continued due to pendency of enquiry before the Conciliation Officer. Thereafter, based on the failure report, the Labour Court took cognizance of the dispute as I.D. No. 3/1996 and issued notice. The 2nd respondent filed claim statement which was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the 2nd respondent was not denied employment as alleged. However, the Labour Court erroneously held that the alleged denial of employment amounts to termination and therefore, passed an award dated 30.01.2010 directing the petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent with continuity of service with 50% backwages and all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Pending this writ, the 2nd respondent/employee died and his legal representatives namely, wife and two daughters were brought on record as respondents 3 to 5 vide order dated 06.06.2017 in WMP(MD) No. 6281/17. According to respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner made two allegations against the 2nd respondent that (i) the 2nd respondent created bogus tea coupon as against the petitioner management; and (ii) there was unauthorized absence for 36 days by the 2nd respondent. 4. According to respondents 3 to 5, the first allegation was disproved by the petitioner as there was no immediate action by the petitioner management. The alleged occurrence said to have happened on 05.01.1995, but show cause notice was issued on 12.01.1995, thus there is a delay of 7 days, for which, no reasonable cause was shown by the petitioner. Further, domestic enquiry notice was issued only on 12.11.1996 which is nearly two years after the alleged occurrence. It is further contended that though the petitioner alleged that the 2nd respondent committed serious charges, no criminal complaint was lodged by them and that there was also a delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. Though the alleged charge committed by the 2nd respondent came to the knowledge of petitioner management by its employees namely, Ashok Kumar and Nagarajan, their statements were not recorded and even the statement of canteen contractor was also not recorded. 5. Though the alleged charge committed by the 2nd respondent came to the knowledge of petitioner management by its employees namely, Ashok Kumar and Nagarajan, their statements were not recorded and even the statement of canteen contractor was also not recorded. 5. As regards the second allegation, the respondents 3 to 5 contended that the 2nd respondent sought for medical leave for the period during which he was taking treatment at Trivandrum, Kerala and wife of the 2nd respondent sent letter seeking medical leave for her husband along with medical certificate issued by the medical practitioner at Kerala and the same was received and acknowledged by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner management sent a notice to the address where the 2nd respondent was taking treatment and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was aware of the treatment taken by the 2nd respondent at Trivandrum and therefore, the allegation of unauthorised absence was not proved and the Labour Court has rightly considered the said aspects and passed the impugned award which does not require interference by this Court. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. Perusal of records shows that before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent examined himself as witness and marked 18 documents as Exs. W1 to W18. On the side of petitioner management, one Tr. Ramasamy was examined as a witness and Exs. M1 to M4 were marked. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was working as a doffer in the petitioner Spinning Mill. Ex. W1 is a registered post sent by the 2nd respondent with medical certificate issued by Dr. Gopala Krishnan Nair of Ayurvethic Medical Hospital, Trivandrum and Ex. W2 is acknowledgement by the petitioner for receipt of Ex. W1. On perusal of Ex. W1, the Labour Court found that wife of the 2nd respondent Mrs. Vijaya had sent a registered post to the Manager of the petitioner Spinning Mill, in which, she has stated that her husband suffered illness on 06.01.1995 and on 08.01.1995, he was taken to Trivandrum Ayurvethic Hospital and from 09.01.1995 onwards, her husband stayed in his relative's house situate at Pattam Village near Trivandrum and was taking treatment. Ex. W3 is the letter addressed by the petitioner on 18.01.1995 to the wife of the 2nd respondent, wherein, it has been stated that a letter was addressed by Mrs. Vijaya along with Medical Certificate dated 09.01.1995 issued by Dr. Ex. W3 is the letter addressed by the petitioner on 18.01.1995 to the wife of the 2nd respondent, wherein, it has been stated that a letter was addressed by Mrs. Vijaya along with Medical Certificate dated 09.01.1995 issued by Dr. Gopala Krishnan Nair namely, a Medical Practitioner and the said Medical Certificate cannot be accepted as the Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Practitioner of E.S.I Hospital alone is valid and if at all the concerned workman decided to take selective treatment in exceptional circumstances, he shall have to approach Legal Cell Authority and explain the reason for taking treatment and only on satisfaction by the Legal Cell Authority, the medical leave application could be accepted and such practice was not adopted by the 2nd respondent and on 06.01.1995, during second shift, the 2nd respondent left the work premises without prior permission and hence the medical certificate produced by Ayurvethic Medical Practitioner is suspicious and the same cannot be accepted. From the perusal of Ex. W3, the Labour Court found that the petitioner management has not stated any provision of Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner Spinning Mill for not accepting the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Gopala Krishnan Nair and therefore held that rejection of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Gopala Krishnan Nair by the petitioner is without any authority under law and not supported by Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner. The Labour Court also found that the petitioner acknowledged Ex. W4 which is a letter sent by the wife of the 2nd respondent stating that her husband's salary for the month of December 94 could be sent to her address at Krishnancoil in Nagercoil and yet another letter attached to Ex. W4 is Ex. W5-Authorisation in writing given by the 2nd respondent to his wife to receive his salary and therefore, the Court held that Ex. W4 also fortifies the stand of the 2nd respondent that he was taking treatment away at Trivandrum in an Ayurvethic Medical Hospital. 8. Perusal of record further shows that Ex. W6 is a letter dated 12.01.1995 addressed by the mill management to the 2nd respondent which would show that one Mr. Venkata Gurunathan who is running canteen for the benefit of mill workers has lodged a complaint that the 2nd respondent fabricated the coupons and sold the same to fellow workers thereby caused huge revenue loss to him. W6 is a letter dated 12.01.1995 addressed by the mill management to the 2nd respondent which would show that one Mr. Venkata Gurunathan who is running canteen for the benefit of mill workers has lodged a complaint that the 2nd respondent fabricated the coupons and sold the same to fellow workers thereby caused huge revenue loss to him. From the perusal of Ex. W6, the Labour Court observed that it is quite pertinent to note that Mr. Venkata Gurunathan gave such complaint to the petitioner on 05.01.1995 whereas, Ex. W6 was addressed to the 2nd respondent only on 12.01.1995 and if at all the 2nd respondent had issued bogus canteen coupons thereby got unjust enrichment, the said Venkata Gurunathan could have sent the complaint to the 2nd respondent much before 12.01.1995 and therefore, Ex. W6 lacks credibility with regard to the allegations against the 2nd respondent. Ex. W7 is the registered letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the Manager of the petitioner management which reveals that sender Mr. Muthukrishnan/2nd respondent is on medical leave and put up at Geetha Garden, Pattam, Trivandrum, under the care and custody of one Mr. Anilkumar. In Ex. W7, the 2nd respondent has categorically called for production of the alleged complaint given by Mr. Venkata Gurunathan; details of partnership of the canteen being run by Mr. Venkata Gurunathan and also their addresses; details about the price of food stuffs which were sold by the canteen to college staffs and students attached to the campus of the mill; details pertaining to the sale of food stuff to college teachers and students on credit basis and cash basis; details relating to 94 December and 95 January of the coupons issued by canteen proprietor on cash basis and credit basis; the amount deducted from out of the salary of workers for food stuff taken by them from the contractor of the canteen and other details of the cheques. According to the 2nd respondent, production of all documents are very crucial to decide the allegations made against him. But, quite surprisingly, in Ex. W8, the petitioner management has stated that copy of the complaint given by the contractor of the canteen and bogus canteen coupons handed over by the contractor of the canteen to the management are only sent to the 2nd respondent. The complaint given by Venkata Gurunathan attached to Ex. But, quite surprisingly, in Ex. W8, the petitioner management has stated that copy of the complaint given by the contractor of the canteen and bogus canteen coupons handed over by the contractor of the canteen to the management are only sent to the 2nd respondent. The complaint given by Venkata Gurunathan attached to Ex. W8 would go to show that some of the coupons offered by the workers appeared to be bit abnormal in size and the manner in which letters printed on it appeared to be totally different and on 05.01.1995 one Mr. Ashokkumar, Mill Supervisor, came to canteen around 05.30 p.m and consumed cup of tea and handed over the coupon and the coupon given by Mr. Ashokkumar appeared to be different and on enquiry, Mr. Ashokkumar told him that the said coupon was given to him by one Mr. Nagarajan who was undergoing training in the petitioner mill and on enquiry, Nagarajan replied that he received the coupons from one Mr. Muthukrishnan, 2nd respondent. He further stated that from the 2nd respondent, he purchased canteen book containing ticket coupons which were found to be bogus and false and hence Mr. Venkata Gurunathan came to know that the 2nd respondent was only issuing bogus coupons to the workers of the mill and the same had caused huge revenue loss to him. From Ex. W8, the Labour Court found that along with Ex. W8, photocopy of original coupon and the alleged bogus coupon have been enclosed, but neither the canteen contractor nor petitioner management lodged complaint to the concerned police regarding the alleged issuance of bogus coupons by the 2nd respondent. So saying, the Labour Court held that the material furnished with Ex. W8 alone are not sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent alone had distributed bogus coupons to fellow workers as no police complaint has been given for the alleged charge which according to the petitioner is serious in nature. 9. The records further disclose that Ex. W9 is photocopy of original coupon sent by the petitioner along with letter dated 01.02.1995, by which the petitioner has called for explanation for the alleged sale of bogus canteen coupons made by the 2nd respondent. From the perusal of Ex. W9, the Labour Court found that the address of the petitioner in the said document has been stated by the petitioner as "Mr. From the perusal of Ex. W9, the Labour Court found that the address of the petitioner in the said document has been stated by the petitioner as "Mr. P. Muthukrishnan Spinning Ticket No. 208, C/o. M.R. Anilkumar, Geetha Garden, Pattam, Trivandrum" and copy of Ex. W9 has been sent to the wife of the 2nd respondent to Krishnancoil address. Therefore, the Labour Court held that in Ex. W9, there is a conscious admission made by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was taking treatment only at Triavandrum Ayurvethic Medical Hospital by staying at Pattam village near Trivandrum. From Ex. W9, the Labour Court found that the coupon attached with it does not furnish any categorical clue that the 2nd respondent was only selling bogus coupons in the name of contractor of the mill canteen as the statement of Mr. Ashokkumar and Mr. Nagarajan have not been enclosed along with Ex. W9. Ex. W10 is a letter dated 13.02.1995 sent by the 2nd respondent through registered post to the Manager of the petitioner stating that he reported for duty after medical treatment on 13.02.1995 around 07.00 a.m., but the watchman did not permit him to enter the mill campus. From Ex. W10, the Labour Court found that until Ex. W10 dated 13.02.1995, no domestic enquiry notice in respect of the complaint said to have been given by the canteen contractor on 05.01.1995 was issued to the 2nd respondent. Ex. W16 dated 16.02.1995 is I.D raised by the 2nd respondent under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Conciliation), Nagercoil, who after conciliation, issued failure report dated 15.09.1995. 10. Perusal of record further discloses that though there was almost one month time between 05.01.1995, the date on which complaint was given by the canteen contractor and 12.02.1995, the petitioner did not choose to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent. The records also shows that until 16.02.1995, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 2nd respondent and therefore, the Labour Court held that such conduct of the petitioner management would clearly go to show that there were no sufficient materials to prove the allegations made against the 2nd respondent by the canteen contractor Mr. Venkata Gurunathan and also of unauthorised absence on the part of the 2nd respondent from 06.01.1995 to 16.02.1995. 11. Venkata Gurunathan and also of unauthorised absence on the part of the 2nd respondent from 06.01.1995 to 16.02.1995. 11. The records further disclose that only after a lapse of more than one year, Ex. M1-domestic enquiry notice dated 12.11.1996; Ex. M3-second notice for domestic enquiry dated 14.12.1996 and Ex. M4-yet another domestic enquiry notice dated 09.01.1997 were issued to the 2nd respondent. Though the petitioner was handicapped from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent till 15.09.1995, the date on which failure report was issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 12(4) of the I.D Act, and also between 15.09.1995 and 22.02.1996, the date on which, the 2nd respondent filed I.D. No. 3/1996, there is absolutely no explanation on the part of the petitioner management why Ex. M1- first domestic enquiry notice dated 12.01.1996 was issued after a passage of more than one year. Therefore, the Labour Court observing that though domestic enquiry is not necessary in all the cases, considering the allegation against the 2nd respondent which according to the petitioner is serious in nature, the petitioner ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 2nd respondent between 15.09.1995 and 22.02.1996, which the petitioner failed to do so, held that non conducting of domestic enquiry proceedings against the 2nd respondent would clearly go to show that the petitioner had no sufficient material to prove the charges made against the 2nd respondent. 12. As far as unauthorised absence of the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court held that Exs. W1 to W5 would clearly go to show that the 2nd respondent had duly submitted medical leave application along with medical certificate issued by Dr. Gopala Nair, Ayurvethic Medical Practitioner, but the same was unduly rejected by the petitioner. Upon perusal of Ex. W11-standing orders of the petitioner management, the Labour Court held that in the absence of any provision shown in Ex. W11 that worker who goes on medical leave must necessarily get medical certificate only from E.S.I. Dispensary and Medical Certificate issued by any Doctor other than E.S.I Doctor could not be accepted, in all fairness, the petitioner management ought to have accepted the medical leave application of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the Labour Court held that the charge of unauthorised absence on the part of the 2nd respondent has not been proved by the petitioner management. Hence, the Labour Court held that the charge of unauthorised absence on the part of the 2nd respondent has not been proved by the petitioner management. Ultimately, the Labour Court ordered re-instatement of the 2nd respondent with continuity of service and payment of 50% of backwages, as the 2nd respondent had not revealed his correct age in the I.D application, Medical Certificate and other affidavits, along with other attendant benefits. 13. This Court is in entire agreement with the finding recorded by the Labour Court. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner management did not adduce sufficient materials to prove the charge of issuing bogus coupons against the 2nd respondent and also the charge of unauthorised absence. The Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the entire evidence and rendered a categorical finding that the petitioner management had no sufficient material to prove the charges made against the 2nd respondent. In my considered opinion, the impugned award dated 30.01.2010 made in I.D. No. 3/1996 is a well considered award based on evidence and does not require interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending this writ, the employee/2nd respondent died and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 3 to 5. Hence, the petitioner management is directed to pay all monetary benefits payable to the deceased 2nd respondent as ordered by the Labour Court in the impugned award to respondents 3 to 5, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.