The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging wrongful termination, and in the absence of evidence supporting such claim, the court will not uphold the award of reinstatement and back wages.

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. 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