Judgment :- 1. The writ-petitioner, which is one of the Tamil Nadu Government undertaking, is the appellant herein. They filed the writ petition to quash the order of the second respondent made in C.P. No. 142 of 1991, dated March 29, 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed by K. S. Bakthavatsalam, J. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2. Notice of motion was ordered by a Bench of this Court on April 13, 1994. After service of notice, the first respondent is represented by Sri K. M. Ramesh. The writ appeal is admitted. 3. It is seen from the order of the learned Single Judge that the appellant had all along been taking a technical stand against the workman/first respondent to set at naught the lawful claim of a poor worker/first respondent. In this case, the award was passed on March 14, 1988, and it has become final, having been not appealed against. As regards the claim petition filed by the worker, the appellant originally took a stand of maintainability of the very claim petition itself. The said objection was negatived. Thereafter, the appellant contested the claim petition by contending that the quantum claimed by the worker was not acceptable to them. The Labour Court, on a consideration of the rival claims, awarded a sum of Rs. 37, 183.70 to the worker as backwages payable by the appellant. Before the learned Single Judge, the very same contention was reiterated and the learned Judge rejected the same. The learned Judge has also rejected the contention of the appellant that the calculation memo filed by them was not looked into and no reasonable opportunity was given to them. The very same contention is now raised before us. 4. We are unable to appreciate the stand taken by the appellant. In our opinion, the appellant, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, has all along been taking only a technical stand in order to thwart the claim of the worker. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant, two different figures have been mentioned in regard to the entitlement of the worker. In Para 3 it is stated that the worker would be entitled to Rs. 29, 254 and in Para. 4 it is stated as Rs. 26, 925.15. The appellant itself is not sure about their liability. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant, two different figures have been mentioned in regard to the entitlement of the worker. In Para 3 it is stated that the worker would be entitled to Rs. 29, 254 and in Para. 4 it is stated as Rs. 26, 925.15. The appellant itself is not sure about their liability. The Labour Court, on a consideration of the entire matter, has awarded a sum of Rs. 37, 183.70. No case is made out by the appellant warranting interference in this writ appeal. 5. We are of the view that the appellant/Corporation is indulging in vexatious litigation all along in fighting against a poor worker by initiating and also opposing the proceedings initiated by the worker in one forum or the other. The appellant, as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, should think twice before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, that too against its own worker who has successfully fought out against the appellant's numerous proceedings. In spite of the above remarks of the learned Judge, the appellant has the temerity again to indulge in this fruitless litigation by expending and wasting the public money by filing the writ appeal. 6. The first respondent/worker in spite of his success all though was again compelled to engage a counsel and incur legal expenses in opposing this writ appeal. While ordering notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated April 13, 1994, has passed a conditional order directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 26, 924.15, which according to the appellant, is the admitted amount due and payable to the first respondent by the appellant. It is represented by the learned counsel for the first respondent, that this conditional order has not been complied with, which only shows that the appellant which is a public sector undertaking has scant respect for the orders passed by the highest Court in the State. In our opinion, it is eminently a fit case for awarding exemplary costs. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, we award a costs of Rs. 2, 500 to be paid by the appellant to the first respondent. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2, 500 payable by the appellant to the first respondent. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, we award a costs of Rs. 2, 500 to be paid by the appellant to the first respondent. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2, 500 payable by the appellant to the first respondent. Consequently, Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 5302 of 1994 is dismissed as no longer necessary.