ORDER : K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner seeks to quash the award of the Labour Court, Satem, in I.D.No. 83 of 1992, dated May 21, 1996. 2. The second respondent an employee with the writ-petitioner as an operator in the cinema theatre was dismissed from service on certain charges which include assault on a co-worker and abusive language against the co-worker. In the enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised industrial disputes and after the failure report by the Conciliation Officer, the Labour Court took up the dispute and after consideration of the evidence, the Labour Court has held that the charges were not proved and consequently, the writ-petitioner management was directed to reinstate the petitioner. Hence the above writ petition by the management. 4. Though I have heard the learned counsel for the management, on the merits of the charges and the proof of the charges against the petitioner, the management is entitled to succeed on the short ground that in spite of the management having offered employment on the same terms of pay and allowances, the employee/second respondent was not prepared to accept the said offer. 5. A perusal of the award itself shows that even during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the management had offered that the employee will be reinstated in some other job with the same pay and allowances, but the said offer was rejected and, therefore, the Conciliation Officer had reported failure. 6. Even in the counter filed by the management before the Labour Court, the management had made the offer of reinstatement. In the counter also, the management had taken a stand that on March 11, 1983, during the conciliation proceedings an offer was made by the management to provide him alternate employment with the same salary and without affecting his service and that the employee did not accept it and he was adamant that he should go only to the operator post. 7. It is also seen that immediately after the award was answered in favour of the employee, again the management had sent a letter to the employee on April 24, 1997, directing the employee to report to duty. The said communication has been duly received and acknowledged by the second respondent on April 24, 1997. 7. It is also seen that immediately after the award was answered in favour of the employee, again the management had sent a letter to the employee on April 24, 1997, directing the employee to report to duty. The said communication has been duly received and acknowledged by the second respondent on April 24, 1997. The learned counsel for the management states that till date, he has not joined the duty. 8. The above stated facts will clearly disclose that in spite of the repeated offers before the Conciliation Officer and before the Labour Court and this Court, directing the petitioner to come and join duty, the employee had deliberately refrained from joining duty and has not accepted the offer of the management. 9. The attitude of the employee cannot at all be appreciated. He cannot claim any right over particular post. As long as the pay, allowances and other conditions of service are not affected, it is always open to the management to assign any work or to transfer the employee from one post to the other. Such an offer has been made by the management from the beginning. Apparently, the employee seeks to obtain unfair gain of back-wages without even working. The provisions of I. .D. Act are not intended for such exploitation in an unfair manner. 10. In the said background, the employee is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.