Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the Management in this writ petition. They have challenged an Award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.680 of 2000. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court found that the non-employment of the second respondent workman was unjustified and he was entitled for re-instatement with continuity of service, full backwages and other attendant benefits. It is this impugned Award dated 31.05.2006 is the subject matter of the writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 11.01.2007, this Court admitted the writ petition and also recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the Management that they had already deposited the backwages from 19.05.2000 to till August 2005 pursuant to the order of this Court earlier. An interim stay was also granted on the same day. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute on 24.04.2007 with liberty to the workman to seek for modification. Accordingly, the workman filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2008 to vacate the interim stay and that application was directed to be posted on top of the list on 30.04.2008. For reasons best known, the matter was not listed. The Workman also filed an application in M.P.No.2 of 2008 seeking for direction to pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act. In that application, a direction was given to the Management to pay the last drawn salary from the date of filing of the writ petition viz., 10.01.2007. The arrears of last drawn wages from 10.01.2007 till April 2008 was also directed to be paid within four weeks. It is agreed that the said order has been complied with by the Management. 3. The facts leading to the non-employment of the workman were as follows:- The workman was employed in the Stores Department from 11.08.1997 and thereafter, he was posted to the machine shop as an Operator and his last drawn salary was Rs.2300/- per month. The workman was covered by the provisions of the ESI Act and he was an insured person. On 23.03.2000 at about 1.15 a.m, while he was operating the Semi Automatic Injection Moulding Machine, his fingers on the right got inside and had crushed in the machine and as a result, he had lost his three fingers. The workman was covered by the provisions of the ESI Act and he was an insured person. On 23.03.2000 at about 1.15 a.m, while he was operating the Semi Automatic Injection Moulding Machine, his fingers on the right got inside and had crushed in the machine and as a result, he had lost his three fingers. He was immediately rushed to the Government Stanley Hospital and he was also on medical leave as per the ESI Leave facilities. The Medical Board attached to the ESI Corporation certified the loss of earning capacity of the workman at 60%. He was also given fitness certificate to rejoin duty. But when he went to report for work, he was not given any employment and he was unemployed. 4. It was the stand of the Management that notwithstanding the fact that there is no provision for re-employing a disabled employee, they had agreed to send him to work in their sister company by name T.A.Taylor Private Limited but the workman refused to go. It was the stand of the workman that he was not given any employment in the petitioner company and even the other company where they directed him to go, he was directed to go and work as Trainee Employee for which he stoutly refused. This stalemate lead to the workman raising an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation. The Conciliation Officer as he could not bring about mediation gave a failure report. On the strength of the failure report, the workman filed a claim statement before the first respondent Labour Court. 5. The Labour court registered the dispute as I.D.No.680 of 2000 and ordered notice to the petitioner Management. The petitioner Management had filed a counter statement disputing the maintainability of the dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act as according to them, there was no industrial dispute in the eye of law and they were not responsible for any non-employment. Despite being offered an alternative employment in another company, it was the workman who remained absent. 6. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of the Management, one R.Jayakumar was examined. On the side of the workman, while 11 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W11, on the side of the Management, no documents were filed. 7. 6. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of the Management, one R.Jayakumar was examined. On the side of the workman, while 11 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W11, on the side of the Management, no documents were filed. 7. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence let before it framed three issues for consideration. The first issue was whether there was denial of employment on 19.05.2000 as alleged by the workman. The second issue was whether the Managements contention that the workman had abandoned service was legally correct and the third issue was whether he was entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and other benefits. The first and second issue was tried together and the Labour Court held that when the workman reported for work, it was the Management which did not allow him to work. The complaint made to Conciliation officer in Ex.W2 will clearly prove that the workman reported for work and therefore, there was no question of any abandonment by the workman. On the offer of an alternative employment, the Labour Court held that while the workman wanted reinstatement in the same company, it is the Management which wanted to send him to some other sister company, which is 20 kms away from the earlier place of employment and that was also a conditional employment. It was also proved that it was not on any regular employment but only as a trainee service technician and therefore, the Labour Court held it was not a case of any alternative employment as known to industrial jurisprudence. Therefore, the Labour Court rendered a finding that the workman was denied employment when he reported to duty on 19.05.2000 and as the termination was not due to any misconduct either for abandonment as alleged by the Management or on account of any medical invalidation, the Court found that it is a clear case of retrenchment without fulfilling the condition precedent for effecting the same. The Labour Court held that non-employment of the workman was unjustified and he was entitled for normal relief of reinstatement with all other benefits. 8. The Labour Court held that non-employment of the workman was unjustified and he was entitled for normal relief of reinstatement with all other benefits. 8. Even before this Court, the contention raised by the Management as found reflected in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was that it was the case of abandonment and that the workman did not accept the so called alternative employment and since they have not denied employment to the workman, the Award passed by the Labour Court was illegal. But however, a perusal of the Award clearly shows that the Labour Court has kept in mind all the contentions raised by both sides and has clearly recorded the finding that the so called alternative employment was not an alternative employment and there was no abandonment on the side of the workman. This fact has also been proved by the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.W2. 9. In the said circumstances, this court do not find any case is made out to interfere with the impugned Award. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the Award being confirmed and already the Management had deposited the amount pursuant to the interim order passed earlier in WPMP.Nos.27126 and 27127 of 2005 in W.P.No.24768 of 2005, the workman is at liberty to withdraw the same and also to claim the balance amount, if any from the Management in the manner known to law. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.