The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Standing Order No. 13(g) and (m) allowed for the automatic termination of service for continuous absence without leave without the obligation for a domestic enquiry.

. The challenge in this writ petition is directed against the award Ext. P-1 rendered by the Labour Court, Quilon in an industrial dispute (I.D. No. 71/69) that had arisen between the Travancore Rayons Ltd-the writ petitioner-and the Union representing the employees of the Company (first respondent). The said dispute concerns the termination of the services of an employee by name V. Sankaran Nair who was working in the spinning department of the petitioner-Company. The said employee was absent from duty without permission continuously for a long time commencing from 28th April, 1968. On the 12th of August, 1968 he applied for a month's leave on the ground of illness without producing any medical certificate. The period of absence from 28 41968 to 1181968 was not covered by that application for leave. By a memo dated 16th August, 1968 Sankaran Nair was directed by the Company to appear before the Company's Medical Officer for a medical examination. But he did not comply with the said direction. On 13th September, 1968 the Company informed the employee that since he had been continuously absenting from duty without leave or permission from 28th April, 1968 onwards he would be regarded as having voluntarily left the services of the Company and treated as a deserter if he did not report for duty within four days and offer a satisfactory explanation for his unauthorised absence. That communication was sent by Registered Post to the home address that had been furnished to the Company by the employee. After the said communication had been sent by the Company, a leave application from Shri Sankaran nair bearing the date 11th September 1968 requesting for the grant of leave on medical grounds for the period from 13th August to 13th September, 1968 was received in the Company's Office. But that application was also not accompanied by any medical certificate. The petitioner-Company thereupon issued another memo to the employee on 18th September, 1968 calling upon him once again to report before the Company's Medical Officer for a medical examination failing which, the employee was told he will be deemed to have left the services of the Company voluntarily as informed in the memo dated 13th September, 1968. The memo sent by the Company to Shri Sankaran Nair by Registered Post on 13th September, 1968 was returned with the endorsement that it had been refused by the addressee. The second memo dated 18th September, 1968 was also returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement "not known". The fact remained that the employee had been contiguously absenting himself for very much more than eight days without even submitting a proper application for leave and without complying with the direction given to him as early as on 16th August, 1968 to appear before the Company's Medical Officer for a physical examination. The Management therefore took recourse to the provisions of Standing Order No. 13(m) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company and treated Shri Sankaran Nair as having voluntarily left the services of the Company and consequently removed his name from the rolls with effect from 9th October, 1968. It is the legality, propriety and validity of the action taken by the Company that formed the subject matter of the issue referred for adjudication.

2. Even though an attempt was made by the Union to contend before the Labour Court that the employee in question had sent in applications for leave, that those applications had been suppressed by the Management, that no communication had been received by the employee from the Management directing him to appear before the Medical Officer and that hence it cannot be said that the employee had either disobeyed the said direction or absented himself without submitting proper applications for leave, the Labour Court after a detailed consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it found that the said case put forward on behalf of the workman could not be ac