the respondent workman has voluntarily abandoned the services. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sardar Singh, 2004 III-LLJ Page 543 to remain absent without getting the leave sanctioned for a long period and from the action of not reporting for duties though directed to report for duty it is to be presumed that the workman is not interested in service and that when he has voluntarily abandoned the service departmental enquiry is not required to be held. In the present case, after 1.7.1992 the respondent workman did not report for duty though number of reminders were sent which are produced at Exhs. 23 to 38. Therefore, this case being a clear case of voluntary abandonment of service by the respondent workman, there was no question of holding any departmental enquiry by the petitioners as there was no retrenchment and/or dismissal by the petitioners. It is required to be noted that even the respondent workman raised the industrial dispute by way of Complaint after a period of 4 years, i.e., in 1996. Therefore, this is an additional ground to prove that the respondent workman was not interested in service and voluntarily left the service. Under the circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent workman on the ground that no departmental enquiry was initiated before dismissing the respondent workman, is absolutely illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and the same cannot be
