P.D. Dinakaran, CJ.

This is an appeal preferred by the workman-respondent in the writ petition, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2008 passed in WP.No.17962j2005 (L-TER).

2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that:-

2.1) Based on the proved charge of unauthorized absence from service for 32 days in 1980, 84 days in 1990-91, 608 days in 1992-93 and 601 days in 199496, the workman-appellant herein was dismissed from duty with effect from 15.05.1996 treating it as "Voluntarily retired". At the request of the employee, the Government of India, referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short) for adjudication through reference No.L-12012/ll/98j1R(B-II) dated 011.1998. During the trial, both the workman and the management have adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal.

2.2) The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary (sic evidence) adduced by the parties, treated the period of unauthorized absence of the workman from 312.1994 as "not on duty" and directed the management-respondent herein to reinstate the