The Order of the Court was as follows :

The petitioner viz., Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent dated January 19, 1990 made in I.D. No. 55 of 1986 and to quash the same.

From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner what comes to be known is that the petitioner Corporation has filed this writ petition as against the award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in reinstating the second respondent herein in service, but without backwages.

On the part of the petitioners, it would be contended that the second respondent joined duty in the petitioner-Corporation on March 10, 1976 and was holding the post of Fitter-III, that he was in the habit of absenting himself from the duties often and again thus causing great difficulties and inconvenience to the department; that several disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second respondent and he was awarded minor punishments every now and then. But he never reformed himself and again started his practice of absenting from duties even without prior permission.

The further contentions of the petitioner are that particularly from January 20, 1982, he was continuously absent without sanction of any leave and it was only on February 11, 1982, a leave letter was sent to the petitioner. Since absence without leave for more than 10 days consecutively is a misconduct under the Standing Orders and in such event the employees would become liable for disciplinary proceedings, a communication dated February 11, 1982 was sent to the second respondent directing him to rejoin duty immediately, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him.The further contentions of the petitioner are that in spite of such caution given to the second respondent, he only sent a medical certificate obtained from a private medical practitioner on March 1, 1982 requesting for leave on medical grounds for a period of 70 days from March 1, 1982. In fact, the employees are required to obtain the medical certificate from the hospital run by the petitioner Corporation and hence his request for leave on medical grounds was rejected, that a further communication dated March 20, 1982 was sent, directing the second respondent to point duty or alternatively to report before the Medical Officer of the petitioner-Corporation had also not been complied with and hence a detailed charge memo, was issued on March 23, 1982 showing thereby that he was a habitual absentee, that he had absented continuously for over 10 days thus jeopardizing the interest of the petitioner-Corporation thereby contemplating serious misconduct on the part of the second respondent.

On receipt of the charge memo, no explanation was offered by the second respondent and an Enquiry Officer and a Presiding Officer were appointed to go into the whole affair connected to the charge memo; that the enquiry notice was issued on April 8, 1992 fixing the date of enquiry on April 16, 1992 and in spite of receipt of the notice, the second respondent did not attend the enquiry, nor did he send any letter seeking adjournment of the enquiry, that on a second enquiry notice dated April 16, 1992 fixing the enquiry on May 12, 1992 also failed to achieve the desired effect of making the second respondent participating in the enquiry proceedings as a result of which, the enquiry officer was left with no option but to decide the matter ex-parte, allowing the management to let in evidence and thus closing the enquiry proceeding; that the enquiry officer has submitted his finding on May 31, 1982 holding the second respondent guilty of all the charges thus ultimately deciding all the charges proved against the second respondent.Consequent to the finding of the enquiry officer, the petitioner-Corporation provisionally agreed with the findings and issued a show cause n