Judgment :- The writ petitioner is a plantation management. Aggrieved by the preliminary order in I.D.No.360/96, dated 18.08.1998 and the final award in I.D.No.360/96, dated 24.06.1999, the present writ petitions have been filed. .2. The writ petitions were admitted on 06.01.2000 and it was ordered recorded as follows in the WMP No.171/2000: ."Counsel for the petitioner represents that the 2nd respondent workman has already been reinstated and seeks for stay with respect to payment of back wages. Interim stay and notice." 3. Subsequently, this court by an order dated 24.01.2001 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.80,000/-. On such deposit, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount was directed to be invested in a nationalised Bank. Thereafter on 28.02.2005, this court directed the renewal of the fixed deposit and the second respondent was also permitted withdraw the interest from the amount so deposited. 4. Mr. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co submitted that the impugned award and the preliminary order suffers from very many irregularities and are liable to be set aside. But it must be stated here that even before from 1. 2000 (i.e. date of admission of the writ petition), the second respondent has been reinstated in service. The learned counsel submitted that with a view to avoid monthly payment under section 17-B, he was reinstated was ordered and it was also without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition. Yet considering the gravity of the charges alleged against the second respondent and the arguments advanced before this court, this court does not think that it was not a mere question of avoiding monthly payment. It is also now admitted that the workman has been in employment since last nine years. .5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the labour court was wrong in setting aside the domestic enquiry solely on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was willing to receive the documents from the workman without reopening the case. Therefore, the findings on the preliminary issue must be set aside. He also submitted that the Enquiry Officer though was not convinced of the plead of the workman, but yet received the documents. Therefore, there was no prejudice caused to the workman. Therefore, the findings on the preliminary issue must be set aside. He also submitted that the Enquiry Officer though was not convinced of the plead of the workman, but yet received the documents. Therefore, there was no prejudice caused to the workman. But, it must be stated that mere reception of document will not amount to admitting the substance of the document. Therefore, when the workman sought for reopening the case for the purpose of introducing those document, they have a point in stating that such document have to be marked either by way of reopening the evidence or through cross examination of the managements witnesses. Therefore, the labour courts finding that the enquiry officer was unreasonable to reopen the enquiry. Introduction of the documents of the domestic enquiry is important in the light of the proviso to section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act wherein, it is clearly stated that when a dispute of nonemployment comes up for adjudication before the labour court, the court has to confine its adjudication only on the materials available already on record. Therefore, the workman had to necessarily introduce such of his documents in the enquiry. Further, the management is in no way prejudiced by the reopening of the enquiry. This court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the preliminary order passed by the lower court dated 18. 1998. 6. After the preliminary order, on the side of the workman three witnesses were examined including the second respondent and on the side of the petitioner three witnesses were examined as M.Ws.1, 2 and 3. While the workman marked two documents namely, Exs.W-1 and W-2, on the side of the petitioner-management, 45 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M-1 to M-45. 7. The charges levelled against the workman was that he assaulted one Assistant Manager as he had grouse against the said Manager. Since it is a case of assault, the workman does not deserve any sympathy. The labour court on a appreciation of evidence (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that the evidence of the workman side was consistent whereas, M.W.1, who was the Assistant Manager was not consistent in his oral evidence. He did not support his written complaint. Since it is a case of assault, the workman does not deserve any sympathy. The labour court on a appreciation of evidence (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that the evidence of the workman side was consistent whereas, M.W.1, who was the Assistant Manager was not consistent in his oral evidence. He did not support his written complaint. Whereas in all other places, he had mentioned that he has slapped in the left cheek but in his chief examination before the labour court he had deposed that it was on the right cheek. .8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the overall circumstances of the case had not been taken into account and the labour court was too technical in disbelieving the evidence of M.W.1, this court is unable to agree with the said submission. In case of assault as alleged in the present case, and the allegation was that there was slapping, then, that has to be stated with consistency. There is a world of difference between left cheek and the right cheek. In all other proceedings, when M.W.1 had consistently mentioned that the slapping was on his left cheek, it is not clear as to why he had said in the deposition that it was on his right cheek. Even otherwise, the labour court had held that there was no cause for the workman to assault the Assistant Manager as he was not in overall control of the affairs of the estate and it was the Deputy Manager and other persons who were in charge. The labour court on the basis of overall evidence came to the conclusion is consistent and that there was no abuse or assault on the Assistant Manager on 18. 1985. The managements first witness (M.W.1) who also gave a complaint did not depose as per his complaint. In chief examination, he stated that the slap was on has right cheek whereas in all other places, he had stated that it was on his left cheek. When an domestic enquiry held by the management is set aside, the entire matter is before the labour court. If the parties also let in evidence afresh before the labour court the entire issue is within the realm of the labour court including appreciation of evidence. When an domestic enquiry held by the management is set aside, the entire matter is before the labour court. If the parties also let in evidence afresh before the labour court the entire issue is within the realm of the labour court including appreciation of evidence. This court in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with such a finding of fact. 9. In view of the same, the impugned award does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The labour court by its impugned award had directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner-management has also deposited Rs.80,000/- of which, the workman had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- in view of an interim order and the balance is in fixed deposit. The workman has also been receiving interest on such deposit. 10. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the management reinstated the workman without any prestige and because of the bona fide shown; the mulcing the management with full back wages is onerous. The Labour court had also not stated as to why it has awarded full back wages for the period of non employment from 211. 1995 till 26. 1999 which is for a period of 3 ½ years . This contention is well merited. In all cases, when the labour court directs back wages, it must also give reason for granting full back wages. In that view of the matter, the quantum of back wages payable to the second respondent is restricted to Rs.70,000/-.This is with a view to avoid the workman being driven to filing a computation petition before the labour court. Though before this court on behalf of the second respondent it was contended that back wages may come to Rs.1.05,000/-, this court is of the opinion that back wages may be restricted to the amount of Rs.70,000/- which is also in deposit. 11. Hence, both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. It is open to the second respondent to withdraw Rs.70,000/- including interest if any lying in deposit with the labour court as full and final settlement of the amounts due towards back wages. The award is confirmed in other respects. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.