Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.No.482/97, dated 25.11.2003, in and by which, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the second respondent holding that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified and as a result, it held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief of reinstatement in the original job with full backwages and all other attendant benefits. 2. The second respondent was appointed as Inplant Trainee on 01.12.1986. After 7 years of service, he filed a petition before the Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai, seeking regularisation of his service. By taking note of the fact that the second respondent has been working for a long time, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, by order dated 09.04.1997, directed the petitioner management to regularise his service from 01.12.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner management has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13950/97 before this Court. But, in the meanwhile, he was issued with a charge memo dated 23.09.1995, in which, the following four charges were levelled against him. i. He did not mention in the requisite records about sending the vehicle/bus bearing Registration No.H-280 on special duty for operation via route No.123; ii. He alone was responsible for the missing of the bus; iii. Despite knowing about the missing of the bus, he did not inform the same to the higher-ups immediately, (iv) thereby, he indulged in a grave misconduct, amounting to the offence as outlined in Standing Order No.16 (Sub-section ACK). On receipt of the said charge memo, the second respondent has submitted his detailed explanation denying all the allegations. In the explanation, he has specifically stated that on 04.09.1995, one Stephen, emp no.10990, was posted for general maintenance duty and it was he, who sent the bus in question. It was further clarified that he did not show the availability of the bus in question in the register, for, during the relevant time, special buses were being operated to Velankanni in terms of the need and necessity and that is why, the bus concerned was kept separately for plying. 3. The Disciplinary Authority, not satisfying with the explanation offered by the petitioner, has appointed an Enquiry Officer. 3. The Disciplinary Authority, not satisfying with the explanation offered by the petitioner, has appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, after giving all the reasonable opportunities to both sides, submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Accepting the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of discharge, discharging the second respondent from Inplant Traineeship. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent has raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.482/97 before the Labour Court – first respondent herein. The Labour Court, in its non-speaking order dated 25.11.2003, by setting aside the order of discharge, allowed the ID in favour of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner management has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid prayer. 4. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, when the Enquiry Officer has specifically given a finding that when the depot was handed over to the second respondent on 05.09.1995, the second respondent was working as a trainee in the General Maintenance Despatch Section, since one Mr.Stephen, incharge of the depot, went on leave by handing over the register showing the presence of the missing bus. This aspect has not been dealt with by the Labour Court. On the other hand, by a cryptic and non-speaking order, the Labour Court erroneously held that non-employment of the second respondent was not justified. It is totally contrary to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, assailing the cryptic order passed by the Labour Court, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 5. The second respondent has not filed any counter in respect of the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. However, he has filed a vacate stay petition seeking to vacate the interim order passed by this Court on 17.05.2005 against the award passed by the Labour Court, only with a further prayer to pay the salary to the second respondent as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act and nowhere in the vacate stay petition, he has shown any reason to support the impugned order. When the Enquiry Officer has clearly given a finding, holding the second respondent was responsible for missing of the bus, on the basis that when one Stephen had handed over the charge of the depot to the petitioner on 05.09.1995, the Information Register shown the presence of the bus in question in the depot on 05.09.1995, the second respondent not even has shown any mini or tiny reason to disprove the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Further, the second respondent also in his deposition before the Enquiry Officer has not established clearly that the bus was not received by him, while he was incharge of the depot. Moreover, it is important to note the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein the Enquiry Officer, by finding that the delinquent employee was responsible for the exit of the bus from the depot concerned after the register was signed by one Abdul Sadar and only thereafter, the bus was lost due to the callous and irresponsible conduct of the second respondent employee, resulting in disrepute to the Corporation; ultimately, held that all the four charges attributed to the petitioner stood proved. These aspects have not been dealt with by the Labour Court, but, in contra, passed a few line order with a direction to the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the second respondent in the original job with full backwages. Therefore, such non-speaking order does not support the case of anyone. The Labour Court, while exercising the power under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, could have dealt with atleast the findings of the Enquiry Officer and further, no reference has been made either on the findings of the Enquiry Officer or on the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.