JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award dated 8th February, 1991 made by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 81 of 1988, a proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The petitioner was employed in the service of the first respondent from 15th March, 1979. On 31st August, 1983, he applied for leave for three days on the ground that he had received a telegram from his village communicating that his child was sick. He was sactioned leave for three days, and after suffixing the subsequent two holidays of 3rd and 4th September, 1983, the petitioner was expected to resume work on 5th September, 1983.

3. Instead of resuming work, the petitioner sent a telegram, which was received on 5th September, 1983, communicating that he was unable to attend work and requesting for extension of leave up to 17th September, 1983. By another telegram dated 26th September, 1983, he sought extension of leave up to 30th September, 1983 on the ground that his child was sick. By the telegram dated 3rd October, 1983, he sought further extension of leave up to 14th October, 1983 on the same ground. On 17th October, 1983, by another telegram, the petitioner sought extension of leave upto 28th October, 1983 on the ground of illness of his child. By a telegram dated 31st October, 1983, on the ground of childs sickness, he sought extension of leave upto 15th November, 1983. By telegram dated 16th November, 1983, without giving any reason, the petitioner sought extension of leave up to 30th November, 1983. By telegram dated 1st December, 1983, without giving any reason, the petitioner sought extension of leave upto 15th December, 1983. By the telegram dated 30th December, 1983, he sought extension up to 15th January, 1984. By a telegram dated 16th January, 1984, he sought extension of leave up to 31st January, 1984. By telegram dated 23rd January, 1984, he conveyed that he would be reporting for duty only on 25th January, 1984 as his wife was not well. By telegram dated 24th January, 1984, he sought extension of leave upto 31st January, 1984 on the ground that he was not feeling well. By telegram dated 15th February, 1984, the petitioner sought extension of leave upto 15th February, 1984 without giving any reason, and, by another telegrame dated 17th February, 1984, he sought extension of leave upto 29th February, 1984 without any reason. Interestingly, some of the telegrams sent by the petitioner to the first respondent were from Solapur and some were from Akalkot. Thus, it would be seen that, continuously from 5th September, 1983 to 2nd March, 1984, the petitioner kept on addressing telegrams to the first respondent seeking extension of leave on three different grounds, initially that his child was sick, later that his wife was sick and, finally, that he was sick. At no point of time did the petitioner produce any medical certificate in support of the excuse of alleged sicknesses put forward by him. The first respondent addressed letters on 28th September, 1983, 21st December, 1983 and 10th January, 1984 by which the petitioner was informed that he had been absent continuously upto 18th January, 1984, in all, for 141 days, without there being sufficient privilege leave to his credit. He was called upon to show cause why his service should not be terminated under the Employees Service Regulation 31(i). By letter dated 23rd February, 1984, the petitioner was informed that his services were treated as having come to an end on account of voluntary abandonment/desertion. The said letter was sent to the two addresses of the petitioner recorded in the records of the first respondent. The petitioner had addressed a letter dated 22nd March, 1984 purporting to resign from service. The first respondent, by its letter dated 2nd August, 1984, informed the petitioner that there was no questio