Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The case of the workman is that he was on medical leave with ef

Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The case of the workman is that he was on medical leave with effect from 29th September 2018 to 1st October 2018 and he had furnished ESI Doctor's Certificate. According to the workman, he was arrested by the police on 2nd October 2018 for an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code for committing theft outside the factory premises and he was in police custody up to 13th October 2018 and he was subsequently acquitted of the charge of theft. When he went to the factory on 14th October 2018 to resume his work, he was not allowed to do so. He submitted his written explanation on 16th October 2018 for his absence. The services of the workman were terminated by the Company on 24th October 2018. The order of termination reads as under: 'Since you have deserted your post with effect from 2nd October 2018, your name has been removed from the company's muster roll with immediate effect.' The workman raised a reference before the Labour Court at Nagpur. However, it was rejected by a judgement and award dated 25th October 2019. He therefore, filed a written petition in the High Court, which was allowed but the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court permitting him to amend the date of termination. A statement of cliam thereafter was filed by the workman. In the written statement, it was contended by the company that the workman had deserted his employment and therefore, the company has removed his name from the muster roll. It was stated that though the workman presented himself on 14th October 2018, he did not produce sufficient evidence to show that he was arrested by the police. It was also contended that the workman had remained absent without leave on earlier occasions also and he was previously warned for such irregularities. It was contended by the company that, therefore, the workman had committed misconduct as per the Standing Orders and hence it was not necessary to hold any enquiry since the action was taken on undisputed facts. The Labour Court by its judgement and award partly allowed the award. It was held that the services of the workman were legally terminated by the company. However it was held that the workman was entitled to get full back wages. Aggrieved by the award and judgement, the workman filed writ petition in the High Court of Bombay against the same on the ground of the Labour Court validating the order of termination. The Company also filed a writ petition against the order awarding full back wages to the workman. On consideration of the above facts, answer the following questions: (ii) Whether the contention of the company that no enquiry was required before issuing the order of termination of workman is justifiable one ?