the 2nd respondent was appointed as 'technical trainee' for a period of 3 years through a letter dated 01.10.2000 and his monthly stipend was fixed at Rs.1,960/-. During the training period, he was irregular and his attendance was not upto the mark, thereby, a letter dated 08.08.2001 was issued calling upon him to improve his attendance during the further training period and the 2nd respondent also gave a written undertaking that he would improve his attendance. In spite of that, he was irregular and thereafter, he had stopped reporting for training from 25.10.2002 and therefore, he has not completed his training. While so, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.177 of 2005, as if he was terminated from services by the petitioner orally. In fact, the 2nd respondent himself absented from training from 25.10.2002 and thereafter, he never approached the petitioner and after 3 years, he raised an industrial dispute, as if he was terminated orally. Before Labour Court, on the side of the 2nd respondent, he was examined as PW1 and also marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. On the side of Management, no witness was examined and no documents were marked. After analysing the evidence, the Labour Court partly allowed the petition and directed the Writ petitioner to reinstate the 2nd respondent without backwages and attendance benefits with continuity of services. The above said order is not in accordance with law, since the 2nd
