management had not been proved since the so-called calendar was not marked as exhibit. While considering the other allegation regarding money lending business is concerned, the Labour Court had rejected Ex.M.4 Pamphlet issued with regard to the money lending business, on the reason that there was no indication in the said pamphlet that the 2nd respondent was doing the money lending business. Thus, the Labour Court has found that in the absence of any evidence in respect of the said charges levelled against the 2nd respondent under charge memorandum dated 14.06.1988, the order of punishment imposed against him cannot be sustained. While considering the other charge with regard to unauthorized absence from duty, the Labour Court has found that the 2nd respondent had challenged the order of transfer before the City Civil Court, Chennai, and, therefore, he had not accepted the order of transfer and consequently, he could not be expected to report duty at the transferred place. Thus, by finding so, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that even that charge levelled against the 2nd respondent has not been proved.
