appearance on its behalf. Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken any action against him. The plea of unauthorized absence taken in the writ petition is an afterthought. Even after making the payment of the back wages of Rs.2,17,531/- vide demand draft No.086792 dated 04.02.2017 and Rs.38,805/- vide demand draft No.086795 dated 06.02.2017, and dismissal of its application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 05.08.2017, the petitioner had not taken immediate steps to challenge the impugned award though Recovery Certificate 02.11.2017 was issued against it for recovery of Rs.1,67,021/- as wages for subsequent period. It is not disputed that the respondent was employed with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent left the job on 12.05.2012 without any intimation but strangely pleaded that he had settled his claim earlier on 09.05.2012. When the respondent had already settled his claim on 09.05.2012, it is not explained why he will leave the job on 12.05.2012. The petitioner by its act, conduct and acquiescence has already accepted the impugned award by making payment to the respondent workman.
