Judgment :- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the party has taken away the bundle and as such, he is not in a position to make any submission. Party is not present nor any fresh counsel. Heard learned counsel for the second respondent management. The petitioner was originally employed by the second respondent at their office at Mylapore as an office Assistant. On the closure of the Mylapore Office, she was discharged from service, giving rise to an industrial dispute before the first respondent namely, the II Additional Labour Court, Madras in I.D. No. 546 of 1988. Before the Labour Court, an issue was raised as to whether the discharge of the petitioner from service of the second respondent is legal. The Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence, has rendered a finding that the office of the second respondent at Mylapore has been closed and they offered alternative employment to the petitioner at Ambattur which alternative employment has been refused by the petitioner, the Labour Court passed an award declining reinstatement but fixing a compensation equivalent to 6.5 months' salary. It is this award which is challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. On a perusal of the award under challenge and upon hearing learned counsel for the second respondent, I am not prepared to interfere with the same. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable. Substantial justice has been done to the petitioner by offering alternative employment. It is open for her to accept the same and join the Ambattur Unit. While passing the award, the Tribunal has complied with the principles of natural justice. The award is not vitiated by jurisdictional defect or error apparent on the face of the record. Of course, it true that the employment offered to the petitioner at Ambattur unit as stores-in-charge, is not to her liking. I do not think that the petitioner will be justified in her objection. In the present day of equality of sex, when women are employed in almost all the jobs wherever (sic) can be employed, the plea that a lady cannot perform the job of stores-in-charge does not hold good. The appointment as stores-in-charge at Ambattur was on the same remuneration with continuity of service. In the present day of equality of sex, when women are employed in almost all the jobs wherever (sic) can be employed, the plea that a lady cannot perform the job of stores-in-charge does not hold good. The appointment as stores-in-charge at Ambattur was on the same remuneration with continuity of service. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that she has suffered any loss of prospects in her employment by virtue of the alternative employment. At any rate, the petitioner has no right to compel the second respondent management, to retain her as a receptionist-cum-office assistant at Mylapore solely to suit her convenience. The petitioner declined this reasonable offer of the second respondent only for the reasons just known to herFor the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the award under challenge. Accordingly, I confirm the same and dismiss this petition.