ORDER : PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent herein culminating the impugned award in I.D.No.298 of 2007 dated 03.05.2011 and quash the same. This Writ Petition is directed against the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.298 of 2007, dated 03.05.2011. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) The petitioner is the Management. The second respondent was appointed as Driver for the College belonged to the petitioner/Trust, who is running an Educational Institution known as "Krishnasamy Memorial Polytechnic Institution". (ii) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the first respondent - employee without any notice absented himself from service and left the service voluntarily on 18.06.2003 and joined in another private institution as a Bus Driver. After a period of four year, the first respondent filed a petition before the Labour Officer, Cuddalore, claiming that he was not given employment and therefore, he should be reinstated apart from paying salary. Since there was no compromise, the Labour Officer submitted a failure report dated 18.05.2007. (iii) Thereafter, the first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.298 of 2007 before the second respondent alleging that he was orally terminated from service by the petitioner Management and that the Management should be directed to reinstate the first respondent and paid with back wages with continuity of services. The Labour Court allowed the petition filed by the first respondent and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Challenging the Award of the Labour Court, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no termination of employment in this case and that the Labour Court proceeded on erroneous basis that the Management terminated the service of the petitioner orally. He further submitted that the first respondent stopped attending work from 18.06.2003 without any notice and that therefore, the petitioner was compelled to employ somebody as Driver, as the Driver of the bus cannot be dispensed with. He further submitted that the first respondent stopped attending work from 18.06.2003 without any notice and that therefore, the petitioner was compelled to employ somebody as Driver, as the Driver of the bus cannot be dispensed with. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court wrongly proceeded to treat the dispute as one of wrongful termination and that the direction of the Labour Court is contrary to the admitted fact and records produced by the Management. 4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent absented from duty for about four years and that there was no notice or claim till such time, the petition is submitted before the Labour Officer for conciliation. The learned counsel submitted that the Management was put to much hardship by directing reinstatement and 50% back wages. He also submitted that the first respondent left the service of the petitioner seeking employment elsewhere and that therefore, the prayer claimed before the Labour Court is unsustainable. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent however argued that the petitioner did not issue any notice or letter to the first respondent before termination of service. When it is admitted that no domestic enquiry was conducted by the Management, the Labour Court has no other option, but, to allow the petition by directing reinstatement with back wages. The learned counsel pointed out that no charge memo was issued by the Management against the petitioner regarding any misconduct and that the first respondent was in fact orally sent out by the Management without following any procedure or any compliance of principles of natural justice. 6. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. Having regard to the nature of dispute and the specific stand taken by the petitioner and the first respondent before the Labour Court, it is the duty of the Labour Court to frame an issue whether there is an illegal termination or whether the case of the Management that the first respondent absented himself from duty on 18.06.2003 without notice is true. The specific case of the Management is that the first respondent did not report for duty from 18.06.2003 and he was guilty of unauthorised absence. The specific case of the Management is that the first respondent did not report for duty from 18.06.2003 and he was guilty of unauthorised absence. It is also stated by the petitioner that the service of the petitioner to ply the school bus cannot be dispensed with and that therefore, another person was given employment as Driver. In such state of affairs, if the Management proves its version, it could legitimately appoint somebody else in the place of Driver and ply the bus and it cannot be faulted. The conduct of the first respondent that he did not issue any notice or letter to the Management seeking employment and submitted a representation before the Labour Officer four years later clearly shows that the case of the employee namely, the first respondent cannot be believed. 8. The Labour Court has recorded its finding in the following lines:- "9. In this case though the respondent/management stated that the petitioner stopped himself from attending duty in the respondent/management that no action was taken by the respondent against the petitioner for not attending duty in the respondent/management, no notice was issued by the respondent/management to the petitioner for his absence in duty or for the alleged stoppage of duty by the petitioner in service in the respondent/management, no charge memo was issued by the respondent/management against the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted by the respondent/management against the petitioner regarding the alleged voluntary stoppage of work by the respondent in service in the respondent/management. Further more on perusal of evidence it is understood that no compensation and other benefits were not given by the respondent/management to the petitioner as driver in the respondent/management from April 1993 to 18.06.2003. On perusal of evidence and on perusal of records I understood that the petitioner clearly stated that he was not permitted by the respondent/management to attend duty in the respondent/management. As per petitioner's evidence the petitioner was informed not to attend duty in service in the respondent/management, he was orally dismissed from service by the respondent/management on 18.06.2003. As against the petitioner's case the respondent has not produced any document to show that the petitioner himself stopped to attend work in the respondent/management from 18.06.2003 and the petitioner was dismissed from service in accordance with law and in accordance with principles of natural justice. As against the petitioner's case the respondent has not produced any document to show that the petitioner himself stopped to attend work in the respondent/management from 18.06.2003 and the petitioner was dismissed from service in accordance with law and in accordance with principles of natural justice. Further more, the respondent has not produced any document to show that the petitioner caused motor accident while he was working as driver in the respondent/management and further it is admitted the respondent/management that no F.I.R., was registered against the petitioner for the alleged accident said to have been caused by the petitioner. The petitioner was in continuous service in the respondent/management from April 1993 to 18.06.2003 for more than 10 years. As there was no payment of compensation and other benefits as per law to the petitioner by the respondent/management it is clearly understood that Section 25(F) of I.D. Act is not complied by the respondent/management with reference to the service of the petitioner in the respondent/management. Hence in these circumstances and considering the evidence of the petitioner, the oral dismissal of the petitioner on 18.06.2003 by the respondent/management is to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service. The petitioner stated that he did not work in any other institution after oral dismissal. The respondent stated that the petitioner is doing work in Ganesan Bus service from 2003 to 2008. But the respondent/management did not produce any document to prove that the petitioner is gainfully employed in some other company or management. So in these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages." 9. First of all, in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner/management before the Labour Court, it is clearly stated that the first respondent did not report for duty from 18.06.2003 on his own without any prior notice. It is further stated that the first respondent did not give any communication letter or notice to the petitioner complaining non-employment. In paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, further stand has been taken as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE 10. Having regard to the stand taken by the petitioner in the counter affidavit, the finding of the Tribunal on the basis that the Management has taken a stand that the first respondent was dismissed from service in accordance with law and in accordance with principles of natural justice is erroneous. Having regard to the stand taken by the petitioner in the counter affidavit, the finding of the Tribunal on the basis that the Management has taken a stand that the first respondent was dismissed from service in accordance with law and in accordance with principles of natural justice is erroneous. The issue has been wrongly understood by the Tribunal. It is to be seen that the petitioner/management cannot produce any document to show that the first respondent stopped attending work on his own. It is well settled that a person cannot be asked to prove a negative. The situation to which the petitioner is placed shows that the management is asked to prove that the first respondent failed to attend the work on his own without notice or intimation. The fact that the first respondent did not raise an issue nor issued any notice for more than four years would amply show that he was not terminated from service. When the petitioner comes forward with the wrongful termination, it is always open to him to lead proper oral evidence to prove his case that he was prevented from attending work. 11. The Tribunal has also found that the management has not applied Section 25(F) of I.D.Act. This is not a case of retrenchment and therefore, referring to Section 25(F) of I.D.Act would show that the Labour Court has not applied its mind as to the real issue to which, the parties are in dispute. The question whether the management has proved the charges against the first respondent does not arise in this case having regard to the stand. Merely because, the petitioner/management is unable to produce any document or evidence to prove that the first respondent is gainfully employed in some other management/company, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to reinstate the first respondent with back wages. 12. This Court finds that the findings of the Labour Court are not only perverse, but, contrary to the known principles of law. From the available records, this Court is unable to find any evidence to accept wrongful termination of the first respondent. Therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.298 of 2007, dated 03.05.2011, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.