Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. Pursuant to a domestic enquiry, the second respondent-M.Easwaramurthy was dismissed from service on 31st January, 1991. The said order was held illegal by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. As against the award passed in I.D.No.52 of 1994, dated 22. 1996, directing reinstatement of the second respondent with backwages, the appellant-Management preferred Writ Petition, but having lost, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. 2. The Labour Court, on considering the facts and evidence, came to a definite conclusion that the copies of documents which the enquiry officer and the Management relied upon, were not furnished to the charge-employee (the second respondent herein) and they were relied upon behind the back of the second respondent. The Labour Court held that non-furnishing of documents would vitiate the enquiry and the enquiry so conducted was not fair and proper. 3. Before the Labour Court, as also in this Writ Appeal, one of the grounds taken by the Management is that the second respondent had admitted the charges levelled against him and so, the documents were not furnished to him. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the second respondent in his reply admitted any of the guilt. Further, it has not been made clear as to why enquiry was conducted if the guilt was admitted by the second respondent, as alleged by the Management. 4. The learned single Judge rightly refused the submission that the second respondent having agreed to pay the amount of Rs.11,748/-after the criminal case foisted against him was over, it cannot be considered that the second respondent had accepted the charge of misappropriation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Management submitted that the second respondent was not a workman and thus, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. It is a question of fact and such issue has not been raised before the learned single Judge and in the absence of specific pleading, we are not inclined to deliberate on such issue. 6. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the Management that the second respondent will attain the age of superannuation after about four months and therefore, they may not take work from him and they are already paying him a sum of Rs.500/- p.m. pursuant to the interim order passed by the Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contention. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contention. In view of the fact that the enquiry was conducted in violation of rules of natural justice and there having been concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. Further, as it is informed that the second respondent is to superannuate from service after about four months and as there is no case made out, we are not inclined to remit the matter to the Labour Court to appreciate further evidence. 8. So far as the question of taking work from the second respondent is concerned, it is for the appellant-Management to decide. As we are not interfering with the award of the Labour Court or the order passed by the learned single Judge, the second respondent stands reinstated to the post and deemed to be continuing and is entitled for backwages as per the award passed by the Labour Court. The appellant-Management is supposed to pay the arrears, if not yet paid, after adjusting the amount if any paid in the meantime pursuant to the Courts direction, immediately. If it is not paid within one month from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order, the appellant-Management will be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on such arrears, from the date of award. 9. If the appellant-Management decides not to take work from the second respondent in future, they might do so, but they will have to pay full month salary till the second respondent attains the age of superannuation and will also be liable to pay other benefits including the retiral benefits if any payable under the law. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. W.A.M.P. is closed.