Judgment :- 1. The Management of Park Town Co-operative Whole Stores Ltd. has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned award passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai on a petition filed under Sec.33(c) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by the respondent No.1/ Workman. 2. The Workman while working as Packer at Koyambedu Fair Price Shop, was charged with deficit of stock and was suspended on 30.03.1991. The workman was served with charge memo on 23.05.1991, being not satisfied with the explanation of the Workman, domestic enquiry was ordered. 3. The enquiry officer found the Workman guilty of charges. The competent authority by accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, terminated the Workman on 04.08.1993. 4. The Workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.848 of 1993. The Claim petition was allowed and order of termination was held to be bad in law. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the Workman with full backwages. 5. The Management challenged the award of reinstatement with full back wages before this Court in W.P.No.13824 of 1998. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court. However, while admitting the writ petition, the Management was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) which was deposited and withdrawn by the Workman. The petitioner attained superannuation in the year 1998. 6. In the claim petition filed under Sec.33(c)(2) of I.D. Act, the Workman claiming subsistence allowance of Rs.68,752.50 (Rupees sixty eight thousand seven hundred and fifty two and paise fifty only), backwages of Rs.1,84,200/-(Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand and two hundred only) and bonus of Rs.15,350/- (Rupees fifteen thousand three hundred and fifty only). The Workman also claimed retrenchment compensation and gratuity. 7. In support of the claim, the Workman appeared as P.W.1 and placed on record Ex.P1 and P2. Whereas Management examined Thiru J.N.Gajendran as R.W.1 and produced documents Ex.R1 to R32. 8. The learned Labour Court observed that in the cross examination, it was stated by the respondent No.1/Workman that he was entitled to Rs.3,65,342/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty five thousand three hundred and forty two only) out of which Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) was paid to the respondent No.1/Workman under the orders of this Court. 9. 8. The learned Labour Court observed that in the cross examination, it was stated by the respondent No.1/Workman that he was entitled to Rs.3,65,342/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty five thousand three hundred and forty two only) out of which Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand only) was paid to the respondent No.1/Workman under the orders of this Court. 9. The plea of the Management that the Workman was guilty of stock deficit to the tune of Rs.65,332/- (Rupees sixty five thousand three hundred and thirty two only) was rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court, in view of the fact that the charge was not held to be proved by the learned Labour Court, in the reference made under Sec.10 of the I.D. Act in which Workman was ordered to be reinstated with full backwages. 10. The Management disputed the claim of the Workman that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.2,670/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred and seventy only) by submitting that the total salary of the Workman was Rs.896/-(Rupees eight hundred and ninety six only) and not Rs.2670/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred and seventy only). Sufficient proof in support thereof was also produced by the Management. 11. It is the submission of the petitioner that the learned labour Court proceeded on the presumption that in the award passed by the learned Principal Labour Court on which reliance was placed by the Workman, the question of salary had already been decided. The learned Labour Court therefore accepted the statement of the Workman. 12. This finding of the learned Labour Court on the face of it is totally perverse. The learned Principal Labour Court in the award had not taken any decision regarding salary of the Workman, but had only ordered reinstatement of the Workman with full backwages. 13. It was for the Workman to prove the monthly salary drawn by him for the period for which it was claimed. 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Workman, that the Workman has already filed a separate petition to claim gratuity from the respondent under the payment of gratuity Act. 15. The impugned award holding that the Workman was entitled to monthly salary of Rs.2,670/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred and seventy only) is not supported by any evidence. 16. 15. The impugned award holding that the Workman was entitled to monthly salary of Rs.2,670/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred and seventy only) is not supported by any evidence. 16. The finding of the learned Labour Court that the question of salary stood decided in previous reference, cannot be accepted as there was no such finding recorded either by the learned Labour Court or by this Court while ordering reinstatement of Workman with full backwages. 17. The finding of the learned Labour Court therefore is based on no evidence, thus being perverse cannot be sustained in law. 18. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside, and the case is remitted back to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai for determination of due amount payable to the Workman by giving opportunity to the Workman to lead evidence in support of the claim and also by permitting the petitioner Management to produce oral and documentary evidence showing salary of the petitioner etc. and to further prove the amount already paid to the Workman, out of the claimed amount. 19. The Management and the Workman are directed to appear before the learned II Additional Labour Court, Chennai on 23.08.2012 at 10.30 a.m. 20. Keeping in view the fact that matter is pending since 2005, the learned II Additional Labour Court, Chennai is directed to expedite the hearing of the case and finally dispose of, preferably within six months of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No cost.