Judgment :- The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the 1st respondent, Principal Labour Court, Chennai, ordering reinstatement of the 2nd respondent in service of the petitioner, Anna University (hereinafter referred to as the University) with full backwages and all other attendant benefits. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows :- The 2nd respondent, J.Selvaraj, was engaged on daily wage basis by the Executive Engineer and Estate Officer, who was deputed from the Public Works Department of the State Government to carry out certain construction and maintenance work relating to the petitioner University on casual basis and was also paid from and out of the contingent funds. The 2nd respondent was given daily wages only as a non-muster roll employee. It is the further pleading of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent was engaged by the Estate Officer to keep a watch on the construction materials belonging to the University. As it was decided by the University to put up a pucca construction on the Taramani land, the 2nd respondent was engaged as watchman at the Taramani land from the Oct., 1987 to 8th Dec., 1987, 14th Sept., 1988 to 12th Feb., 1989 and from 3rd Sept., 1990 to 18th Jan., 1992 depending upon the exigency of construction work carried out on the Taramani land. Apart from the above mentioned dates, the 2nd respondent was not engaged continuously as alleged by him in his claim petition laid before the Principal Labour Court. It is further submitted that the University cannot employ any workman, including clerk, gardener and watchman other than through sponsorship from the employment exchange. Therefore, it is amply clear that it is not the case of the 2nd respondent that he was engaged through employment exchange as a regular employee against any permanent vacancy in the office of the petitioner University. Admittedly, there is no such post of Building Supervisor in the University so to say that the 2nd respondent was appointed by the University as Building Supervisor. 3. Whileso, the 2nd respondent left the place of work at Taramani without authority or permission of the Executive Engineer and Estate Officer and went to Anna University Main Campus at Guindy and was found committing an offence of theft by stealing two iron rods belonging to the University. 3. Whileso, the 2nd respondent left the place of work at Taramani without authority or permission of the Executive Engineer and Estate Officer and went to Anna University Main Campus at Guindy and was found committing an offence of theft by stealing two iron rods belonging to the University. Therefore, in view of the above said incident, that took place on 18th Jan., 1992, the 2nd respondent was stopped from further engagement as a daily wager by the Estate Officer. Suppressing all these facts in the claim statement, the 2nd respondent has laid the claim statement before the 1st respondent, Labour Court, challenging the termination and sought for reinstatement with backwages along with continuity of service. The Labour Court, without noticing the material evidence required to establish the claim made by the 2nd respondent that he was employed by the University on daily wage basis, had erroneously allowed the claim made by the 2nd respondent as though the 2nd respondent was engaged by the University from 1987 to 1997 and that he was wrongly terminated without holding proper enquiry when he was not employed at all by the University as admittedly he has not been employed through employment exchange. The claim of the 2nd respondent, instead of being rejected, was erroneously allowed by directing the petitioner University to reinstate the workman in service with full backwages. On the abovesaid submissions, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/workman submits that the 2nd respondent was employed as a non-muster roll employee under the control of the petitioner University from 7th Dec., 1987 to 19th Dec., 1988 as a Clerk in the Department of Maintenance. Again he was re-engaged on 20th Dec., 1988 to 30th Sept., 1990 as a Building Supervisor in the Department of Construction. Again he was re-engaged from 1st Oct., 1992 to 15th Jan., 1992 as a Gardener in the Department of Maintenance. Further he was engaged as a Watchmen from 15th Jan., 1992 to 20th Jan., 1992 in the Department of Maintenance and finally he was engaged as a Clerk from 21st Oct., 1992 to 9th Oct., 1993 and 8th April, 1996 to 17th June, 1996 in the Department of Tamil Nadu Professional Course Examination. Further he was engaged as a Watchmen from 15th Jan., 1992 to 20th Jan., 1992 in the Department of Maintenance and finally he was engaged as a Clerk from 21st Oct., 1992 to 9th Oct., 1993 and 8th April, 1996 to 17th June, 1996 in the Department of Tamil Nadu Professional Course Examination. It was further submitted that the 2nd respondent was paid Rs.16/= per day till 7th Oct., 1987 and given increment of Rs.2/= per year till 17th June, 1997 and from 17th June, 1997, the 2nd respondent was given Rs.46/= per day. Whileso, on 18th June, 1997, as usual, when he went for duty, there was no work allotted to the 2nd respondent and on that basis he was asked not to come to the petitioner University from that day onwards and he was directed to go to the Accounts Department to settle the accounts. When he was employed by the University from 7th Oct., 1987 to 17th June, 1997, without confirmation by the petitioner University, instead of confirming the services of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has simply refused to give him job without disclosing any reason. Therefore, he was constrained to move a dispute before the Conciliation Officer at Kuralagam, Chennai and as there was no fruitful compromise reached between the parties, the 2nd respondent was constrained to lay a claim petition before the Labour Court complaining the disengagement of the 2nd respondent all of a sudden, that too, after putting in several years of continuous service. The Labour Court, having considered the case of the petitioner, finally allowed the claim made by the 2nd respondent in I.D. No.105 of 1998 dated 8th Nov., 2004, holding that the 2nd respondent was engaged by the University continuously from 1987 to 1997, but without issuing any charge memo nor holding any enquiry and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the principles of natural justice, the termination of the 2nd respondent was not justified and on that basis held that the 2nd respondent is entitled to the relief of reinstatement in the service with backwages and all other attendant employment benefits. When the Labour Court has exercised its power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was further pleaded that this Court, under writ jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. 5. When the Labour Court has exercised its power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was further pleaded that this Court, under writ jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. When the 2nd respondent has laid a claim before the Labour Court claiming that he was continuously employed by the petitioner University from 7th Dec., 1987 to 19th Dec., 1987, 20th Dec., 1988 to 30th Sept., 1990, 1st Oct., 1990 to 15th Jan., 1992, 15th Jan., 1992 to 9th Oct., 1993 and 8th April, 1996 to 17th June, 1996, and was paid a salary of Rs.16/= per day till 1987 and subsequently he was paid a salary of Rs.46/= per day in the year 1996, the 2nd respondent/workman neither submitted any proof like the appointment order issued by the petitioner University nor any salary slip or identity care or any scrap of paper issued by the University to show that he was an employee of the University to establish his claim of continuous employment with the University from 1987 to 1997 and there was no proof produced to show that he was also paid salary by the petitioner University. When the 2nd respondent had not produced any evidence like appointment order, pay slip or any voucher or identity card to prove that he was an employee of the University and he was paid salary by the University and that there existed an employer-employee relationship between the University and the 2nd respondent. The Labour Court has failed to take into account the non-production of any material evidence into consideration before passing the award of reinstatement of the 2nd respondent in the service of the University with backwages and continuity of service. When it is the claimants case before the Labour Court that he was an employee working with the petitioner University for quite a long time, even any man of prudence would have seen that the claim made by the workman could not be simply believed in the absence of any evidence produced by the 2nd respondent/workman, who has claimed that he was engaged by the petitioner University on casual basis. At rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of any workman,, be it clerk or gardener or any other employee cannot be made by the University without recourse to the District Employment Exchange, lest the payment of salary to the 2nd respondent, who claims to have been engaged as an employee of the petitioner University could not have been made legally to anyone working in the petitioner University. It is pertinent to note that had the workman been sponsored by the employment exchange, he could have produced the letter issued by the employment exchange to prove his case that he was one of the candidate referred for employment at the petitioner University. The failure of the 2nd respondent to produce even that piece of evidence, the letter issued by the employment exchange, has to be definitely viewed against the 2nd respondent. In the absence of any material evidence, it is highly impossible to accept the claim of the 2nd respondent that he was employed by the University as a casual employee for about 10 years from 1987 to 1997. When no evidence has been produced by the 2nd respondent/workman, it is beyond the power of the Labour Court to pass an award in favour of the 2nd respondent holding that he has been terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. It is pertinent to keep in mind that it is not necessary to disengage a casual employee said to have been employed by the Executive Engineer to keep watch on the Taramani land belonging to the petitioner University for the purpose of preventing some illegal encroachment. Therefore, the Labour Court should not have been carried away by the bald allegation made by the 2nd respondent, which is unsupported by any material evidence to prove that he was employed by the petitioner University. It is also necessary to point out that while a sympathetic view has been taken by the Labour Court to reinstate the 2nd respondent in the service of the petitioner University, the Labour Court has nowhere clarified as to in which post the workman has to be employed. The Labour Court has also not taken care to find out whether the 2nd respondent was qualified enough to be employed in the petitioner University, which indicates total non-application of mind while exercising the power u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has also not taken care to find out whether the 2nd respondent was qualified enough to be employed in the petitioner University, which indicates total non-application of mind while exercising the power u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The power invested with the Labour Court u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not only to meet the ends of justice in a case where the employee/workman is thrown out of employment without following the process of law, but it is also equally important for the Labour Court to see that no person takes advantage of Section 11-A to thwart the interest of justice by filing frivolous cases and, thereby, the Labour Court is also bound to safeguard the interests of the employer as well in such circumstances. 8. In the present case, there is no evidence to prove that the 2nd respondent was employed by the petitioner University. If that be the case, the award passed by the 1st respondent, Labour Court, directing reinstatement of the 2nd respondent with backwages and continuity of service is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and not supported by evidence. In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.105 of 1998 dated 8th Nov., 2004, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. But there shall be no order as to costs.