ORDER: Petitioner is the Management of Thanjavur District Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Manalmedu. The 2nd respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 10.12.1984 on the ground that the 2nd respondent applied for leave on 7.1.1984 and she had given several leave applications repeatedly and no orders have bee passed on the said applications. However the petitioner issued noticed on 13.6.1984 asking the 2nd respondent to report for duty and since the 2nd respondent failed to report for duty, the petitioner Management by order dated 13.10.1984 directed the second respondent to appear before the Medical Board and produce the medical certificate on or before 27.10.1984. To the said show cause notice, the second respondent sent a reply on 25.10.1984 informing the Petitioner Management that the Medical Board has fixed the date after 27.10.1984 and therefore she was unable to appear before the Medical Board and produce the medical certificate as directed in the memo dated 13.10.1984. However, subsequently, the second respondent produced such certificate on 10.3.1985 by the time she was dismissed from service on 10.12.1984. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent filed W.P. No.1844 of 1985 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 4.9.1990 as the writ petition is not maintainable as against Cooperative Society. Thereafter the second respondent raised an industrial dispute which was originally numbered as I.D. No.527 of 1991 before the first Additional Labour Court, Madras and after reconstitution the said dispute was transferred to the file of the first respondent and renumbered as I.D. No.441 of 1992 and finally award was passed on 3.6.1994 directing reinstatement of the second respondent herein with backwages. Aggrieved by the said award, present writ petition has been filed by the management. 2. Based upon the claim statement and the counter affidavit filed by the management, the Labour Court had framed the issue for consideration as to whether the second respondent is entitled to reinstatement with backwages. 3. The Labour Court on merits found that the second respondent though applied for number of occasions for the grant of leave, the said applications were not rejected. The second respondent was informed by notice dated 13.6.1984 that the action of the 2nd respondent amounts to misconduct. However on such misconduct no enquiry was conducted by the Management. 3. The Labour Court on merits found that the second respondent though applied for number of occasions for the grant of leave, the said applications were not rejected. The second respondent was informed by notice dated 13.6.1984 that the action of the 2nd respondent amounts to misconduct. However on such misconduct no enquiry was conducted by the Management. Therefore, the Labour Court found that in the absence of any enquiry, the order of termination of the 2nd respondent could not be justified and consequently ordered reinstatement with backwages. 4. Mr. V.Karthik the learned counsel for the petitioner Management submitted that even though the second respondent applied for leave on 7.1.1984 and subsequently she submitted application for extension of leave and the same was not granted. However by a show cause notice dated 13.6.1984 the petitioner Management asked the second respondent to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the second respondent for her continuous absence. In order to give opportunity to the second respondent, the petitioner Management has issued a memo on 13.10.1984 asking the second respondent to produce the medical certificate on or before 27.10.1984. Since, the second respondent failed to produce the certificate the petitioner Management had no other option except to dismiss the 2nd respondent from service. In any event the finding of the Labour Court in relying on the submission of the 2nd respondent that she filed W.P. No.1844 of 1985 challenging the order of dismissal dated 10.12.1984 which came to be dismissed on 4.9.1990 and therefore, the second respondent is entitled to backwages from the date of dismissal viz., 10.12.1984 till the date of the filing of the application under Sec.2-A of Industrial Disputes Act i.e. on 11.9.1991 is not valid. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that even though the second respondent had applied for leave, the same was not rejected by the petitioner Management. Pursuant to the direction of the petitioner Management dated 13.10.1984 directing the second respondent to appear before the Medical Board and produce the certificate on or before 27.10.1984, the second respondent appeared before the Medical Board for issuance of such a certificate. Pursuant to the direction of the petitioner Management dated 13.10.1984 directing the second respondent to appear before the Medical Board and produce the certificate on or before 27.10.1984, the second respondent appeared before the Medical Board for issuance of such a certificate. However, the Medical Board has informed the second respondent that she has to appear before the Board after 27.10.1984 and therefore, the second respondent was not in a position to produce the medical certificate as directed by the Management on or before 27.10.1984. The second respondent informed the same to the petitioner Management by letter dated 25.10.1984. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the second respondent in not producing the medical certificate within the time stipulated by the petitioner Management. When once the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the order of the petitioner Management was not justified and directed reinstatement of the second respondent with backwages, the petitioner Management cannot seek for re-appreciation of the evidence let in before the Labour Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the award of the Labour Court is in accordance with law. 6. Second respondent went on leave on her application dated 7.1.1984 which was sanctioned by the petitioner Management. Subsequently the second respondent sent another application for extension of leave. The same was not refused by the Management. However the contention of the petitioner Management is that the said application was not accepted by the Management and therefore, it is to be presumed that the application of the second respondent was rejected. I do not agree with the said submission since that application was not rejected and no orders have been passed on the said application. In such circumstances, it should be presumed that the said application was accepted. Moreover, by a show cause noticed dated 13.6.1984 marked as Ex.M-27 the petitioner Management treated the absence of the second respondent as misconduct. Thereafter no enquiry was conducted by the Management and the second respondent was not given any opportunity to defend the case. In such circumstances, it should be presumed that the said application was accepted. Moreover, by a show cause noticed dated 13.6.1984 marked as Ex.M-27 the petitioner Management treated the absence of the second respondent as misconduct. Thereafter no enquiry was conducted by the Management and the second respondent was not given any opportunity to defend the case. It is to be further seen that after the show cause notice, the petitioner Management issued another memo on 13.10.1984 directing the second respondent to produce the medical certificate on or before 27.10.1984 to which the second respondent sent a reply on 25.10.1984 explaining the inability to produce the certificate as directed by the Management since the Board has fixed the date after 27.10.1984. Without considering the explanation given by the second respondent, the petitioner Management terminated the second respondent from service on 10.12.1984. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the Management dated 10.12.1984 is not justified. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court in awarding reinstatement with backwages. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner Management submitted that the case against the order of dismissal the second respondent filed W.P. No.1844 of 1985 before the Court and the same was dismissed on 4.9.1990. Even thereafter the second respondent filed an application raising industrial dispute only on 11.9.1991. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court directing backwages for the entire period is not sustainable. The second respondent has choosen to file writ petition as against the order of dismissal and W.P. No.1844 of 1985 was dismissed by this Court on 4.9.1990. Even thereafter the petitioner has not raised the industrial dispute immediately after 4.9.1990. But the second respondent raised the industrial dispute only on 11.9.1991. The said delay in raising the dispute is only due to the second respondent. In that event, I am unable to agree with the direction of the Labour Court directing backwages for the period from 10.12.1984 till 6.10.1994 and the second respondent is entitled to reinstatement with back wages from 12.9.1991 to 6.10.1994. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No.441 of 1992, dated 3.6.1994 is modified to the extent that that the 2nd respondent is entitled to reinstatement with back wages from 12.9.1991 to 6.10.1994. No costs.