JUDGMENT :- 1. Both the writ petitions were filed against the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.438 of 1998 dated 28.3.2008. The first writ petition (W.P.No.15937 of 2009) was filed by the employee by name D.Santhanam challenging that portion of the award wherein and by which, he was denied the relief of reinstatement with backwages. 2. That writ petition was filed before this Court on 5.9.2009 and notice of motion was ordered on 10.08.2009. 3. Subsequently, the employer i.e. the management of M/s Madras Advertising company limited, filed the second writ petition,(W.P.No.22514 of 2009) challenging the very same award, insofar as they were directed to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation in lieu of the claim for reinstatement. 4. That writ petition which were presented on 3.11.2009 was admitted on 4.11.2009. 5. As both writ petitions were challenging the same Award, they were heard together and a common order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the workman is referred as ''employee'' and the company is referred as ''management''. 6. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the case, one factor must be noted. Subsequent to the award passed by the Labour Court, the management sent a letter dated 20.01.2009 to the employee stating that they have kept a cheque for a sum of Rs.65,000/- as full and final settlement drawn in his favour, which is available at their office. They also made it clear that they were offering the amount without prejudice to their rights available in law for challenging the award. It appears that the employee went to the company and received the cheque for a sum of Rs.65,000/- drawn on the Central Bank of India and passed on a receipt, a copy of which is enclosed at Page 37 of the typed set filed by the management. The receipt dated 09.02.2009 contains the signature of the employee who had signed on a Revenue Stamp on 10.02.2009. The text reads as follows: "With this payment, I have no demand or claim/s whatsoever against the company in future, including the benefits both monetary or otherwise either directly or indirectly or before any Court of Law which involves the company in respect of my services rendered during the period 01.08.1982 to 25.08.1997. 7. The text reads as follows: "With this payment, I have no demand or claim/s whatsoever against the company in future, including the benefits both monetary or otherwise either directly or indirectly or before any Court of Law which involves the company in respect of my services rendered during the period 01.08.1982 to 25.08.1997. 7. It is surprising that after passing a receipt and after receiving the amount, the employee, has chosen to file the writ petition in W.P.No.15937 of 2009. In the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, there is no reference about the employee having received the amount in full and final settlement of the amount indicated in the award. He passed on the receipt with the contents noted above. This practice of litigants coming to Court and not disclosing the full facts before the Court, should not be entertained. 8. While passing the receipt, the employee did not even state that he was receiving the amount without prejudice to his right to contest the award. In such circumstances, if the employee made the management to part with the amount also passed a receipt to the effect that he will not have any further claim, the law of estoppel will apply and the writ petition filed by the employee is not maintainable. 9. In any event, in the present case, the employee raised a dispute on the basis of his alleged non-employment with the management on the strength of a failure report given by the Conciliation officer viz., Labour Officer II, Chennai. He filed a claim statement on 06.08.1998 before the first respondent Labour Court. The said Industrial Dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.438 of 1998 and notice was ordered to the management. The management filed a counter statement dated 17.01.1989. In the counter statement, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the Industrial dispute by the employee. It was contended that it was not the case of non-employment covered by Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even before the Conciliation Officer, they were aggreable to take him back into service on the same terms and conditions provided he gives an assurance that he would be regular in his attendance. 10. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the employee, he had examined himself as WW1 and also filed 19 documents marked as Exs.W1 to W19. Even before the Conciliation Officer, they were aggreable to take him back into service on the same terms and conditions provided he gives an assurance that he would be regular in his attendance. 10. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the employee, he had examined himself as WW1 and also filed 19 documents marked as Exs.W1 to W19. On the side of the management no oral evidence was let in. But, however 18 documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.M1 to M18. The Labour Court, on the basis of materials( both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that even as per the deposition of the employee as WW1 and as per Ex.M15, the employee had abandoned his service. The order passed by the employer under Ex.M.17 was valid and legal and did not call for any interference. 11. On the question of whether the employee is a 'workman' within the meaning of 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court found that he cannot be termed as a 'workman' coming within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court also found that the employee had signed in the bills on behalf of the respondent management and he was dealing with cash and he was employed in an executive capacity and hence he cannot be treated as workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. Therefore, the Labour Court, having found that the grievance of non-employment was not valid, refused to grant any relief. Though the Labour Court found that the dispute itself was not maintainable, but curiously, it held that since the employee had put in 15 years of service, while declining to grant reinstatement or other benefits, he must be provided with some compensation on the basis of his long service. His last drawn salary which was Rs.4330/- was taken note and on that basis, the Labour Court concluded that the employee can be granted Rs.65,000/- as compensation, even after hold that the dispute itself was not maintainable. 12. Since the management itself have paid the compensation after receiving an acknowledgment from the employee, it is not necessary to go into that portion of the Award. 12. Since the management itself have paid the compensation after receiving an acknowledgment from the employee, it is not necessary to go into that portion of the Award. Though the management in their offer to pay the amount, have stated that it was without prejudice to their rights to challenge the award, yet they did not choose to challenge the award immediately. Only on getting notice on the writ petition filed by the employee, as a counter-blast, the management had filed the present writ petition. 13. At the same time, the contention of the employee that the finding of the Labour Court was erroneous, also cannot be accepted on the ground of maintainability of the Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court, appreciating the deposition of WW1 and also considering the effect of Ex.M.17, recorded a finding that the employee is not a 'workman' within the purview of the Act. It also found that as a matter of fact that it was a case of abandonment of service. Once a finding of fact is recorded by the Labour Court, unless there are good reasons to interfere with such finding, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into such finding. Thus, the writ petition filed by the employee is also misconceived. 14. In view of the above, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.