JUDGMENT :- 1. Both the writ petitions were filed by one and the same Management. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.38754/2005), the challenge is to the order passed by the first respondent Labour Court in C.P.No.234 of 1998 dated 29.01.2004. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.1,34,103.83. As against the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 01.12.2005. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner Management deposits 50% of the amount ordered by the Labour Court within four weeks. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 16.03.2009, it was informed to this Court that the amount had been deposited and hence, the interim stay was made absolute. Though the second respondent had filed an application to vacate the interim order, no orders were passed on the ground that the matters were referred to Lok Adalat for resolution of the dispute. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Management has filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.25417 of 2006, challenging the subsequent order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.136 of 2003 dated 27.04.2006. In this claim petition, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.6,06,120/-. 4. That writ petition was admitted on 17.08.2006. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted, directing the petitioner Management to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by the Labour Court to the credit of C.P.No.136 of 2003 within a period of six weeks. When the second respondent filed a vacate stay application, this Court by an order dated 21.01.2009 found that the said interim order has been complied with and since already the matter is three years old, it expressed its disinclination to deal with the vacate stay application. 5. Though both the writ petitions were sent for resolution of the dispute by a Lok Adalat, it was sent back to this Court after recording the failure of resolution. Even when the matters came up before this Court, this Court also attempted to mediate between the parties so that all disputes between the parties can set at rest once in for all. However, while the Management was willing for a reasonable settlement, the contesting second respondent was not ready for any settlement. It was claimed that the respondent had also filed subsequent claim petitions before the Labour Court and they are pending. 6. However, while the Management was willing for a reasonable settlement, the contesting second respondent was not ready for any settlement. It was claimed that the respondent had also filed subsequent claim petitions before the Labour Court and they are pending. 6. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management and Mr.S.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting second respondent. 7. It is seen from the records that the contesting second respondent had joined the petitioner Management as Stenographer and she has been working since 27.03.1972. From 1978, as her eye sight had become poor she was utilised as despatch Clerk. From 1993 till 13.12.1993, she worked as Petty cash Clerk. She was also doing the work of Filing, Telephone operation, despatch, petty cash handling as well as managing the reception desk till 13.12.1993, the day on which her services were illegally terminated. Therefore, she raised an industrial dispute being I.D.No.350 of 1994. The said dispute was taken on file by the II Additional Labour Court. Subsequently, by an Award dated 17.04.1998, she was directed to be reinstated with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 8. Since the petitioner Management did not implement the Award, she filed a claim petition, seeking for the benefit of Incremental Arrears, Children Scholarship from 1991 to 1993 and from 01.01.1994 to 31.03.1998, Encashment of Privileged Leave, Difference in Bonus from 1981 to 1993, backwages from 01.01.1994 to 31.03.1998, Leave Travel Allowance, Medical re-imbursement. The said claim petition was filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that petition was taken on file as C.P.No.234 of 1998 and notice was ordered to the petitioner Management. On notice from the Labour Court, the petitioner Management filed a counter statement dated Nil (August 2000). In the counter statement, it was stated that due to her eye defect, she could not discharge her duties and therefore, the Management was unable to utilise her services as Stenographer. The Management was willing to settle her claim once in for all. As per their calculation, she is eligible to get Rs.1,00,380/- together with PF accumulation. It was further stated that the second respondent was not entitled to any increment since she was not working. She is also not entitled to get the wages deducted as the deductions were made due to her late attendance. As per their calculation, she is eligible to get Rs.1,00,380/- together with PF accumulation. It was further stated that the second respondent was not entitled to any increment since she was not working. She is also not entitled to get the wages deducted as the deductions were made due to her late attendance. The welfare aids were given at the discretion of the Management. Similarly, the claim for encashment of Privileged Leave had already been settled on December 1993. The statutory bonus was also paid already. Leave Travel Allowance would not be accumulated. Since she is covered by ESI Scheme, the question of any medical reimbursement will not arise. The Management sent two cheques viz., Rs.1,00,380/- towards backwages and Rs.1,80,266/- as final settlement of PF. The total amounts worked out to Rs.2,80,646/- 9. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner Management examined one R.Singaraj as R.W.1 and filed one document which was marked as Ex.R1. The second respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and on her side, two documents were filed and marked as Exs.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is the Award of the Labour Court and Ex.P2 is the legal notice sent by her. Written arguments were also filed by the Management. 10. The Labour Court on an analysis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that the second respondent is not eligible for Travel allowance and medical reimbursement and she was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,34,103.83 on the basis of her oral statement. 11. It transpires that subsequent to the order passed by the Labour Court, the Management sent a letter dated 15.09.2005 stating that her services were terminated on 15.12.1993. After the Award for her reinstatement, the Chennai Branch office had been irrevocably closed in in the year 2002 and no employee was working in the said office. The employees, who were working have settled their accounts in full and final settlement. Since there was a requirement of Stenographer in their Delhi Branch Office, they offered the post of Stenographer to the second respondent without prejudice to their contentions. It was further stated that if she accepts the offer, her service conditions will not be less favourable than the conditions available before her termination. She will also be paid transport charges by Second Class Train fare on actual basis. It was further stated that if she accepts the offer, her service conditions will not be less favourable than the conditions available before her termination. She will also be paid transport charges by Second Class Train fare on actual basis. With reference to her accommodation, it was stated that their Delhi office will try their best and she was directed to report for duty at Delhi Office on or before 01.12.2005. 12. This letter was followed by another letter dated 16.09.2005 giving the address of their Delhi Office and reassuring her about the payment of actual transportation and conveyance charges. They also offered to pay an advance amount towards the same if she so required. 13. Notwithstanding the factum of closure and the offer of employment at their Delhi Office, the second respondent filed the second claim petition being C.P.No.136 of 2003, claiming further payment of wages from 01.04.1998 to 28.02.2003 amounting to Rs.5,05,100/- and bonus for the period from 10.04.1998 to 28.02.2003 amounting to Rs.1,01,020/- altogether, she claimed Rs.6,06,120/- 14. This application was taken on file as C.P.No.136 of 2003 and notice was ordered to the petitioner Management. They filed a counter statement dated Nil (2004). In the counter statement, it was stated that after the Award was passed, the Management had settled all the legal dues. Even after getting the legal dues, she had filed the claim petition for the period from 01.04.1998 to 28.02.2003. It was stated in the counter statement that the company had become Sick Company in the year 1991 and its Chennai office was finally closed in the end of the year 2000. In Mumbai office also, there was closure of several units and hence, the second respondent could not be reinstated either in the Chennai or Mumbai office. Since the second respondent was not reinstated, she is not entitled to wages and bonus for the said period. 15. Once again, before the Labour Court, the petitioner Management examined one M.N.Patil as R.W.1. On their side, they had filed 3 documents which were marked as Exs.R1 to R3. Ex.R3 is the order issued by BIFR. The second respondent examined herself as P.W.1. On her side, three documents were filed and marked as Exs.P1 to P3. Ex.P3 is the earlier order passed in C.P.No.234 of 1998, which is the subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.No.38574 of 2005. 16. Ex.R3 is the order issued by BIFR. The second respondent examined herself as P.W.1. On her side, three documents were filed and marked as Exs.P1 to P3. Ex.P3 is the earlier order passed in C.P.No.234 of 1998, which is the subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.No.38574 of 2005. 16. Though the Labour Court had stated that she was transferred to the Delhi Office due to the closure of Chennai Office, it did not deal with the same but proceeded to compute the amount on the basis of the calculation made by the second respondent and computed a sum of Rs.6,06,120/-. 17. Mr.M.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner Management produced a copy of the original transfer order stating that she was transferred from an earlier company to the petitioner company. Her salary was revised to Rs.1500/- as on 01.10.1989 and there was no further revision. Even in her letter sent to the PF Department, she had admitted having claimed Rs.1,00,380/- towards backwages and Rs,1,80,266/- towards Provident Fund. The learned counsel submitted that if her salary was Rs.1500/- and a fixed increment of Rs.500/- was given, her maximum salary was Rs.2000/- for the year 1990-91, Rs.2500/- for the year 1991-92, Rs.3100 for the year 1992-93 and Rs.3900/- for the year 1993, then she is eligible to get only Rs.58,800/-and not Rs.2,88,000/- Similarly, for the period from 01.01.1994 to 01.03.1998, the total wages payable worked out to Rs.2,94,900/- altogether, she is entitled to get only Rs.3,53,700/-. The labour court without any basis and that too in a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act had given a huge amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the Award, wherein, it was recorded that though she employed as stenographer because of her eyesight she could not be given the same post. Since she is unable to do the work of the stenographer, her work was extracted in other areas. The Labour Court found that while terminating her service, the condition precedents under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act was not followed. Therefore, it ordered her reinstatement. 18. It was argued that even after her transfer to Delhi Office, she did not go to the Delhi Office with effect from 15.09.2005. Therefore, she cannot file claim petition after claim petition claiming backwages from the Management. The Labour Court lacked its power to compute the amount. Therefore, it ordered her reinstatement. 18. It was argued that even after her transfer to Delhi Office, she did not go to the Delhi Office with effect from 15.09.2005. Therefore, she cannot file claim petition after claim petition claiming backwages from the Management. The Labour Court lacked its power to compute the amount. In any even, the Labour Court had made miscalculation and granted increment arrears on its without there being any reference on that purpose. Hence, the order of the Labour Court calls for interference. 19. Per contra, Mr.S.Ravi learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the order of the Labour Court does not call for any interference. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash reported in (2004) 3 SCC 682 for contending that while exercising the certiorari jurisdiction, the Court cannot act like an appellate court and re-appreciate and revaluate the evidence and only in case of any patent error, the court can interfere. 20. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamshad Ahmad and others v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (D) by Lrs and others reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 801(SC) for contending that High Court should restrict itself to a question of law, and that too in a writ petition when an authority records a finding, the High Court should not interfere with the said findings. 21. He further referred to the decision of this Court in Management of Bata India Limited, Hosur and another v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2010-II-LLJ-175 (Mad) for contending that the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari restricted to cases where there are manifest error or that the order was contrary to the provisions of law or that the order was passed without jurisdiction. The first two cases referred to by the counsel arose under the Rent Control Act and the third one is under the I.D.Act. 22. In the present case, the first error committed by the Management was that they did not challenge the Award passed by the Labour Court and allowed the Award to become final and this had enabled the second respondent to file successive claim petitions and before this Court, two claim petitions were challenged in these two writ petitions. 22. In the present case, the first error committed by the Management was that they did not challenge the Award passed by the Labour Court and allowed the Award to become final and this had enabled the second respondent to file successive claim petitions and before this Court, two claim petitions were challenged in these two writ petitions. It was also stated that some other claim petitions are still pending before the Labour Court. A perusal of the evidence let in by the Management shows that at least from 15.09.2005, when they have specifically sent a letter of transfer to Delhi Office, the second respondent cannot claim any further wages unless she reports for work in Delhi Office as the factum of closure is not in dispute and this fact was also spoken to by R.W.1 in the second claim petition and document to that effect has also been produced before this Court. Therefore, the second respondent is not entitled to get any relief with effect from 15.09.2005. Since the Award has become final, the petitioner Management cannot go behind the terms of the Award. 23. In these two writ petitions, admittedly, the claim period is before 15.09.2005. But at the same time, the second respondent had made a fancy claim including incremental arrears, bonus LTC, etc for which there is no proof forthcoming. As rightly contended by Mr.M.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner Management and also as per the calculation memo given by him, the second respondent is entitled only for a sum of Rs.58,800/- for the arrears for the period from 01.04.1990 till 31.12.1993 and Rs.2,94,900 for the period from 01.01.1994 to 01.03.1998 together both the amounts worked out to Rs.3,53,700/-. The second respondent had admittedly received Rs.1,00,380/- towards wages and Rs.1,80,266/- toward PF. Now before the Labour Court the amount of Rs.67,052/- and Rs.3,03,060/- are deposited by virture of the orders of this Court. If the calculations given by the Management are taken into account, the second respondent is eligible to get only Rs.3,53,700/-. Allowing some extra amounts towards cost of litigation, the second respondent is hereby entitled to withdraw the amounts lying in deposit with the Labour court in both the claim petitions. Thereafter, the second respondent is not eligible to get any further amount. Allowing some extra amounts towards cost of litigation, the second respondent is hereby entitled to withdraw the amounts lying in deposit with the Labour court in both the claim petitions. Thereafter, the second respondent is not eligible to get any further amount. Even the claim petitions pending before the Labour Court for further claim are also not maintainable in the light of the findings rendered in these two writ petitions. 24. However, Mr. M.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner Management submitted that they had already paid Rs.1,00,380/- as well as PF amount, which is an extra bonus given to her. In any event, considering the long litigation between the parties and also that the management had not challenged the Award, this Court is not inclined to give credit to the amount already paid. If the amount lying in deposits with the Labour Court are withdrawn by the second respondent, that will be the full and final settlement of all her claims and there will be no further claims whatsoever against the petitioner Management. 25. In the result, both writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.