JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the Principal Labour Court, Chennai relating to the award in I.D.No.473/98 dated 5.2.2004 and quash the same award dated 5.2.2004 and consequently direct the respondent/management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and backwages and all other attendant benefits and award costs.) 1. The Award dated 05.02.2004 passed in I.D.No.473 of 1998 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner joined the service of the respondent Management in the year 1982 as a Driver. He had put in 13 years of service before his termination. A charge memo was issued in proceedings dated 05.08.1995, levelling two charges against the writ petitioner. The first charge is that on 16.03.1995 onwards, he failed to report for duty without any prior intimation or prior permission and the other charge is that the petitioner caused disturbance to the operation of the bus by his unauthorized absence. In respect of the allegations of unauthorized absence, the petitioner pleaded that he was admitted in the Government Hospital due to the sudden development of severe stomach pain and after diagnosis, it was found that he was suffering from “Peptic Ulcer” and from the hospital, the petitioner informed the Management of his inability to report for duty through his colleague namely Mr.Ramamoorthy, Driver Staff No.9108 to the Branch Manager, Tondiarpet Branch. 3. At the outset, it is contended that the petitioner was taking treatment during the relevant point of time and informed the fact through his colleague to the Branch Manager and therefore, the said charge regarding his unauthorized absence cannot be sustained. 4. The petitioner states that after discharged from the Hospital, the petitioner went home. However, his wife Mrs.Tamilkodi threw him out of his house and threatened to kill him. Due to fear of being killed by his wife with her paramour, he lost mental peace and was wandering in the streets and in such circumstances, he could not report for work and he had to seek police protection for his life and personal liberty from the dangerous threats from his wife. Due to fear of being killed by his wife with her paramour, he lost mental peace and was wandering in the streets and in such circumstances, he could not report for work and he had to seek police protection for his life and personal liberty from the dangerous threats from his wife. The petitioner also states that in January 1997, he reported for work and the Branch Manager directed him to approach the General Manager of the respondent office at Ayanavaram and thereafter, the writ petitioner met the Legal Officer, who told him that he was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence and gave him the copy of the order of dismissal dated 05.08.1995. The writ petitioner subsequently raised a dispute in I.D.No.473 of 1998, challenging the order of termination dated 05.08.1995. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the unauthorized absence was due to his ill health and on account of certain family issues. Thus, there was no wilful intention on the part of the writ petitioner. This apart, he informed the fact regarding his admission in the Hospital through his colleague to the Branch Manager. Under those circumstances, he pleaded to quash the order of termination. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention by stating that the writ petitioner was continuously absent from duty and even prior to that on several occasions. He remained unauthorizedly absent and therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered and based on the proved charges, he was terminated from service. The respondent states that the procedures were followed and the principles of natural justice also had been complied with and there is no infirmity in respect of the order of termination issued to the writ petitioner. 7. This Court has carefully perused the findings of the Labour and the Labour Court meticulously considered the documents filed by the respective parties. The details of the absence are well enumerated by the Labour Court in its award. Exhibit W-1 is the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Branch Manager of the respondent Corporation and the writ petitioner applied for leave for two days. However, there is no evidence to show that from 18.04.1995 to 27.05.1995, whether the petitioner was on duty or on leave. Exhibit W-6 is the copy of F.I.R. The wife of the writ petitioner preferred a complaint before H.1 Police Station on 28.05.1995. However, there is no evidence to show that from 18.04.1995 to 27.05.1995, whether the petitioner was on duty or on leave. Exhibit W-6 is the copy of F.I.R. The wife of the writ petitioner preferred a complaint before H.1 Police Station on 28.05.1995. Exhibit W-7 is the letter presented by petitioner's wife to the H-1 Police Station. Exhibit W-8 is the copy of the dismissal order. Exhibit W-9 is the letter preferred by the petitioner to the General Manager. There is no evidence to show whether the petitioner was on leave or on duty from 12.05.1995 to 27.05.1997. Exhibit W-1 is the acknowledgement card. Exhibit W-11 is the attendance sheet particulars during March 1995. The Labour Court found that the evidence of W.W-1 that the petitioner was absent frequently. Contrarily, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he was admitted as inpatient in Stanley Medical College Hospital during leave period. It is found that even during previous occasions, the petitioner remained absent from service on many spells. Thus, the Labour Court arrived a conclusion that the writ petitioner had committed a misconduct. As per Exhibit M-1 to M-17, it was evident that the respondent Management issued notice for domestic enquiry to the address furnished by the writ petitioner. Those letters were returned unserved. The Enquiry officer also found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him. The domestic enuqiry was conducted by following the procedures. 8. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court found that the version of the writ petitioner was not believable and further he has not filed any documents or established that the fact regarding his admission as inpatient in Stanley Medical College Hospital. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court arrived a conclusion that the petitioner abandoned the services voluntarily and consequently, he is not entitled for any relief as such provided in the ID Act itself. 9. Careful reading of the entire facts and circumstances as well as the findings of the Labour Court with reference to the documents filed as well as the evidence recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner has not established his innocence or otherwise even before the enquiry or before the Labour Court in the Industrial Disputes. Careful reading of the entire facts and circumstances as well as the findings of the Labour Court with reference to the documents filed as well as the evidence recorded, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner has not established his innocence or otherwise even before the enquiry or before the Labour Court in the Industrial Disputes. Contrarily, the Management could able to establish that the domestic enquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice and further, the misconduct against the workman was proved beyond any pale of doubt. 10. This being the factum, this Court found that there is no infirmity or perversity in respect of the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.473/98 dated 5th February 2004 and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.