Judgment :- 1. W.P.No.3766 of 2007 is filed by the Superintending Engineer, Kadamparai Generation Circle, Coimbatore District, challenging an Award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.3 of 2001 dated 08.02.2006. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent workman with continuity of service but without backwages or other benefits. 2. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Electricity Board filed the present writ petition, which was admitted on 02.02.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay of the operation of the Award. Thereafter, the aggrieved workman filed two applications in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009. In M.P.No.1 of 2009, the prayer is for grant of last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and that application came to be ordered by this Court on 12.04.2010 and a direction was issued to pay the last drawn monthly wages from the date of the writ petition till the disposal of the writ petition. It is now stated that the payment has been made by the petitioner Board. In M.P.No.2 of 2009, this Court directed the main writ petition to be posted for final disposal on 16th June 2010. For reasons unexplained, the matter was not listed. 3. In the meanwhile, when the matter was called on 22.07.2010, it was referred to resolution by the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat II by an order dated 28.09.2009 returned the papers by stating no such conciliation is possible between the parties. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26600 of 2007, challenging that portion of the Award by which he was denied backwages and other relief. That writ petition came to be admitted on 08.08.2007 and it was directed to be posted along with the first writ petition. On notice, the respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 10.03.2008. 5. In view of the inter connectivity between the two writ petitions, they were heard together and a common order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the Board is referred to as Management and the Worker is referred to as Workman as the case may be. 6. The circumstances that led to raising of dispute by the workman were as follows:- The workman was employed as Contract Labour in the Kadamparai Power House at Pollachi. For the sake of convenience, the Board is referred to as Management and the Worker is referred to as Workman as the case may be. 6. The circumstances that led to raising of dispute by the workman were as follows:- The workman was employed as Contract Labour in the Kadamparai Power House at Pollachi. Subsequently, when proposals for making permanent status were sent, the workman submitted his school certificate. It was informed that the school certificate will be verified with the Educational Department and only on knowing the truthfulness of the said certificate, he will be given permanent worker status. Since he was not given any permanent worker status, he raised an Industrial Dispute for denial of employment in the post of watchman. According to the workman, he was working from 01.04.1982 as Helper in digging pits. From 1988 onwards, he worked as Watchman and he had put in more than 240 days of service in a year and 480 days of service during 24 calendar months and his last drawn salary was Rs.1650/-. In spite of the fact that he is eligible to be made permanent and after submitting his school certificate for verification, without any notice or enquiry, he was removed from service with effect from 04.02.2000. He was also sought to be evicted from the quarters allotted to him in the power station. It is at this juncture, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer as he could not bring about mediation, gave a failure report. 7. On the strength of the failure report, he filed a claim statement dated 27.12.2000 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The said dispute was registered as I.D.No.3 of 2001 and notice was ordered to the Management. 8. The Management filed a counter statement dated Nil. The stand taken in the counter affidavit was that the 8th standard school certificate produced by the workman was sent for verification of its genuineness and correctness and the referred certificate was found to be forged and therefore, he was terminated from service. A criminal case was also registered against him in Crime No.12 of 2000 by Inspector of Police, Kadamparai Police Station for the offences under Section 465, 468, 471 and 480 of IPC, which according to the Management was pending. 9. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the Workman, he examined himself as W.W.1. A criminal case was also registered against him in Crime No.12 of 2000 by Inspector of Police, Kadamparai Police Station for the offences under Section 465, 468, 471 and 480 of IPC, which according to the Management was pending. 9. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the Workman, he examined himself as W.W.1. He filed four documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W4. Ex.W2 is the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Labour, Tiruppur in which the workman along with 52 others were directed to be made permanent in terms of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981. The order came to be passed on 10.12.1989 and directed the management to confer permanent status on the workman covered in the said order. In Annexure I to the order, the name of the workman is found in Sl.No.27 and it is also stated that it has not been subject matter of challenge before any Court. Ex.W4 is the judgment of Criminal Court in C.C.No.51 of 2001 dated 31.01.2005 wherein and by which, the workman was acquitted by the Criminal Court. On the side of the Management, 7 documents were filed and were marked as Exs.M1 to M7. Mr.K.Muralidharan was examined as M.W.1. 10. The Labour Court after noticing that the workman was acquitted by the Criminal Court and also finding that no enquiry was held before terminating the service of the workman, especially when he had been conferred the permanent status, it held that the action of the Management was illegal and therefore, it directed reinstatement of the Workman with continuity of service, but denied backwages. Though the workman claimed full backwages, the Labour Court recorded that there must be a pleading that the workman was not gainfully employed anywhere and unless such a pleading is made, the question of grant of backwages will not arise. In this context, the Labour Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in KendriyhaVidyalaya Sangathan and anotherv. S.C.Sharmareported in 2005 II LLJ 153for contending that the onus of proof that a particular worker is not employed heavily lies on the Workman and since the onus of proof was not discharged, the Court was unable to grant any backwages. 11. Challenging that portion of the Award, the second writ petition viz., W.P.No.26600 of 2007 was filed by the workman. 11. Challenging that portion of the Award, the second writ petition viz., W.P.No.26600 of 2007 was filed by the workman. It is seen from the counter statement except pleading the pendency of the criminal case, the Management did not done anything further to prove before the Labour Court by letting in evidence or summoning the appropriate authorities to prove that the certificate produced by the workman was forged and therefore, he was not eligible to be in the employment. On the contrary, in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.26600 of 2007, the Management contended that as against the order of conferment of permanent status, the Management has filed a writ petition being W.P.No.10899 of 2001 and had got an interim stay. 12. In any event, similar writ petitions filed by the Board were came to be listed before the Division Bench presided by P.K.Misra,J. (as he then was) and they were dismissed by a common order vide judgment reported in 2009 4 MLJ 472 [Superintending Engineer, Nagapattinam Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others v. Inspector of Labour, Tiruvarur]. However, it is unnecessary to go into the issue whether on that date, the workman was terminated from service or he was a permanent or a temporary worker. It is suffice that no enquiry was held before he was dismissed from service and it is contrary to the certified Standing Orders applicable to the workmen employed by the Electricity Board. 13. In the counter affidavit, the Management also noted the acquittal of the workman on 31.01.2005, but merely stated that the acquittal by itself will not whitewash the misconduct committed by the workman and any person who enters the service by producing bogus certificate if allowed to continue will only encourage a similar misconduct by other workers. If the Management is so concerned about the entry of persons with bogus certificate, they should have taken liberty to lead evidence before the Labour Court to justify the dismissal for the misconduct allegedly committed by the workman. The Labour Court in this context held that the workmans entry into service was not based upon the disputed educational certificate. The workman was already in service in terms of Ex.W2 with effect from 06.01.1998. The Labour Court also found that since he is a permanent worker with effect from 06.01.1998, the Management could not shirk their responsibility in not conducting the enquiry. The workman was already in service in terms of Ex.W2 with effect from 06.01.1998. The Labour Court also found that since he is a permanent worker with effect from 06.01.1998, the Management could not shirk their responsibility in not conducting the enquiry. Therefore, it found that on the materials on record produced before it there was no proof that with that certificate the workman had gained entry into service. Such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with. Even in cases where such grave misconduct alleged against the worker, the rule requires a fair hearing according to the principles of natural justice and compliance with statutory rules must be followed as held by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Bal Mukund Bairwareported in (2009) 4 SCC 299 . Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Labour Court. In that view of the matter W.P.No.3766 of 2008is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 14. In W.P.No.26600 of 2007, the claim made by the workman was for full backwgaes. He contended that the Labour Court having found the workman as a permanent worker and acquitted by the criminal court, it should have ordered full backwages. In the matter of grant of backwages, even in case of violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act which results in invalid termination, the Supreme Court vide its judgment reported in (2008) 13 SCC 248 [Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam]has held that though the relief of reinstatement and backwages is a normal rule, other factors namely, particular worker is adhoc employee, daily wages or a temporary employee should also be relevant factors and should be taken into account. 15. In the present case, the Labour Court held that during the pendency of the dispute, the workman had not made any statement that he was not gain fully employed during the said time and also placed reliance on the judgment of the supreme Court in KendriyhaVidyalaya Sangathan case (cited supra). Further, it is the stand of the Management that the order conferring permanent status is the subject matter of a writ petition where this Court has granted stay of the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. In the said circumstances, there is no case made out to interfere with that portion of the Award which denies backwages. Further, it is the stand of the Management that the order conferring permanent status is the subject matter of a writ petition where this Court has granted stay of the order passed by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. In the said circumstances, there is no case made out to interfere with that portion of the Award which denies backwages. Hence, W.P.No.26600 of 2007filed by the Workman is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 16. In the result, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs.