Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the Management seeking to challenge the award passed by the first respondent-Labour Court, Vellore in I.D.No.101/2002 dated 07.02.2007. 2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service with 30% of backwages. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 24.08.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay. Subsequently, the second respondent workman filed a vacate stay petition as well as direction application. This Court by order dated 23.04.2008 directed the management to pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with effect from 21.08.2007. Further direction was given to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards the backwages to the credit of I.D., with the first respondent-Labour Court, Vellore with further direction to deposit the amount in Nationalised Bank. The workman was also directed to withdraw the periodical interest once in six months. It is admitted by both sides that the amount was deposited and the second respondent-workman is withdrawing interest. 4. In the present case, the second respondent/workman claims that he joined service in the petitioner company on 21.07.1994 and he was working as a stitcher operator. On a complaint given by a co-employee viz., Ms.N.Santhanam that the second respondent-workman abused her with filthy language including calling her as a prostitute before so many workers and when other co-employees intervened on behalf of her, he pushed them by putting his hand on their chest and used further abusive language. Apart from Ms.N.Santhanam, the complaint was signed by other co-employee viz., one Ammu. 5. The petitioner in his explanation dated 22.06.2000 claimed that those women employees having link with Union leaders belonging to the Management were the one abused him in high pitch voice and instead of taking action against those employees, the management had taken action against him. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by him, he was suspended by order dated 23.06.2000. At this stage, the second respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The Management contended that the said dispute was not maintainable at the instance of the individual employee. In the mean while, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry. At this stage, the second respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The Management contended that the said dispute was not maintainable at the instance of the individual employee. In the mean while, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry. The Labour Officer, Circle 2, Vellore closed the proceedings at the instance of the individual employee as against temporary suspension. The second respondent was instructed by the enquiry officer that if he does not participate in the enquiry, there is likelihood of concluding the enquiry as exparte. During the proceedings, the second respondent was paid subsistence allowance. The Enquiry Officer without conceding the petitioners request proceeded to conduct the exparte enquiry and recorded the statement of the women employees other than the signatory of the complaint given. The enquiry officer gave a report dated 22.12.2000. On the basis of the report, the petitioner was given a second show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. He was given a copy of the enquiry report. Though the petitioner claimed that as against the decision taken by the Labour Officer, he had gone before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, the Management, as not satisfied with his explanation and finding that he deliberately refused to receive the enquiry officers report, by order dated 09.01.2001, agreeing with the enquiry officers report, he was dismissed from service with effect from 09.01.2001. Thereafter, he was asked to come to the office to settle his legal dues. Accordingly, as against subsistence allowance, Provident Fund, Basic + D.A., H.R.A., and other allowance, have been cleared and the cheque was also issued in his favour for a sum of Rs.14,131.95. It is now claimed that the second respondent has not encashed the said amount. 7. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Labour instructed the Labour Officer that he was wrong in closing the file without proceeding further in respect of conciliation and thus returned the file to the Labour Officer asking him to take further action. Thereafter, notice was issued to the Management. 8. The Management raised its contention that since suspension has come to an end, proceedings regarding conciliation will not arise. They have stated that appropriate enquiry has been conducted in which charges have been proved. As the Conciliation Officer could not bring about mediation, gave his failure report dated 05.11.2001. Thereafter, notice was issued to the Management. 8. The Management raised its contention that since suspension has come to an end, proceedings regarding conciliation will not arise. They have stated that appropriate enquiry has been conducted in which charges have been proved. As the Conciliation Officer could not bring about mediation, gave his failure report dated 05.11.2001. On the strength of the failure report, the second respondent filed a claim statement dated 05.02.2002 and submitted to the Labour Court on 18.02.2002. 9. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No.101 of 2002 and issued notice to the management. The Management filed a detailed counter statement dated 16.04.2002. The contention raised by the management was that the dispute was not valid as it initially raised against the suspension order and not against the dismissal order. Secondly, they have stated that the dismissal was completely justified as the misconduct committed by the second respondent was nothing but sexual harassment on a woman employee and other co-women employees. The management further contended that the question of reinstatement will not arise. In such circumstances, due to the proved misconduct, in paragraph 55 of the counter statement, they have stated that in case enquiry conducted by them held to be vitiated, they could be given opportunity to lead evidence. Therefore, the Labour Court allowed the second respondent-workman to examine himself to decide the validity of the enquiry and he was examined himself as W.W.1. Therefore, the Labour Court tried the validity of the enquiry as preliminary issue and by the preliminary award dated 27.01.2005 held that the enquiry was vitiated. Since the management had reserved its right to lead fresh evidence, the management was directed to lead evidence. 10. It is at this stage, the management examined M.W.1-P.N.Madhin Ahmad, who is the Assistant Manager(Personnel) of the petitioner-company on 22.07.2004. They have also examined one D.Ammu, who is a co-employee on 13.01.2005, who was also cross-examined by the second respondent. 11. Curiously, the second respondent did not choose to go to the witness box to let evidence in the main case. Thereafter, he filed a memo dated 14/10 stating that his evidence given by him during the preliminary award proceedings could be taken as evidence for the purpose of final award. The Labour Court erroneously accepted the said memo and treated as evidence in the main dispute. 12. Thereafter, he filed a memo dated 14/10 stating that his evidence given by him during the preliminary award proceedings could be taken as evidence for the purpose of final award. The Labour Court erroneously accepted the said memo and treated as evidence in the main dispute. 12. Before the Labour Court, 11 documents were filed and marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.11. On the side of the Management, 50 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.50. The Labour Court based upon the these evidence (both oral and documentary) held that there was no clinching evidence on the side of the Management to delink the union activities of the workmen and they were really hostile towards him. It is also stated that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management on charges of misbehaviour was invalid. In respect of the evidence let in before the Labour Court by M.W.2 - D.Ammu, who was one of the co-employees as well as the Assistant Manager (Personnel) viz., M.W.1, with regard to instance that have taken place, the Labour Court held that there are rival contentions. The workers complaint against the other employee was not dealt with by them. The original complainant Santhanam was not examined before the Labour Court. It was found that there were quarrel between the second respondent and the alleged co-employee within the premises of the company. Hence, that incident itself cannot be taken to mean that the worker has absued the other women employees. Therefore, it held that the management has failed to establish that the second respondent workman had misbehaved with Santhanam and used filthy language. Therefore, it held that the dismissal of the workman was not justified and he was entitled to reinstatement in the petitioner company. 13. With reference to the preliminary objection raised about the maintainability of the dispute, the Labour Court held that the dispute was valid and there was nothing wrong in the Labour Officer conducting the proceedings though initially started as against suspension. But on the question of grant of backwages, the Labour Court held that he is not entitled to full backwages and the backwages was limited to 30%. It is this award, which is under challenge before this Court. 14. The only question that to be considered is that whether the impugned award is legally justified. But on the question of grant of backwages, the Labour Court held that he is not entitled to full backwages and the backwages was limited to 30%. It is this award, which is under challenge before this Court. 14. The only question that to be considered is that whether the impugned award is legally justified. Since the petitioner has not filed the entire documents made available before the Labour Court, this Court directed the Registry to summon records from the Labour Court. Accordingly, the Registry circulated the records for perusal. 15. Heard Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the second respondent. 16. A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court show that the Labour Court was not even aware of the judgment in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of enacted law relating to sexual harassment of women in the workplace, the Court itself has given directions for proceeding against the employee, who indulged in sexual harassment. The Supreme Court further held that it lay down the guidelines and norms specified for due observance at all work places or other institutions until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. So far, neither the State Government nor the Central Government though fit to bring the legislation though a bill is pending in the Parliament. It is significant that while granting direction in Vishakas case (cited supra), the Supreme Court made it clear that it will apply to both public and private sector. It is also regrettable that while the Central Government has amended the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 by the amendment notification issued in G.S.R.386 dated 05.11.1999 and incorporated the directives in Vishakas case as part of misconduct including the complaint mechanism has been incorporated, the State Government has not chosen to do so. The Supreme Court held that the directives issued in the Vishakas case will be a law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the same is binding on all the parties. 17. The Supreme Court held that the directives issued in the Vishakas case will be a law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the same is binding on all the parties. 17. As to what constitute the sexual harassment has been set out in page No.3016 which is as follows:- "(2.) Definition For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as: (a) physical contact and advances ; (b) a demand or request for sexual favours ; (c) sexually coloured remarks ; (d) showing pornography (e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. " The complaint mechanism for enquiring into such complaint is also set out in the said judgment and it is unnecessary to reproduce the same. However, the Labour Court failed to follow the guidelines mentioned in Vishakas case, which judgment was much available at that time. Further, the Labour Court had not dealt with the case sensitively as it had been dealt with when the charges levelled against the second respondent workman has been proved. The evidence of M.W.2-Personnel Manager is also significant. Further in the chief examination of D.Ammu, they have not only marked the written complaint, but got signatures of all persons present at the time of the incident took place who were nearly 150 in number. The said Ammu in her cross examination denied that she was in any way related to the original complainant Santhanam. The evidence of M.W.2 shows that her evidence could not be impeached by the second respondent workman. She denied the statement that she was giving evidence after receiving money from the management. She also stated that there was no prior enmity between her and the workman. With reference to written complaint, she has also stated that it is true that the second respondent workman defamed the employee Santhanam and they were pushed by the workman by putting his hand on their chest and abused filthy language. 18. It is not known as to why the Labour Court rejected the said evidence established by M.W.1 relevant to the complaint, which was uncontroverted. After evidence of M.W.1 and M.W.2, the petitioner has not chosen to give fresh evidence. He was satisfied with the evidence put in by him during the preliminary issue and claimed it as substantive evidence at the preliminary stage. After evidence of M.W.1 and M.W.2, the petitioner has not chosen to give fresh evidence. He was satisfied with the evidence put in by him during the preliminary issue and claimed it as substantive evidence at the preliminary stage. The Labour Court accepting the contention that the complainants, who were belonging to the rival trade union, set aside the contention made by the management and made a bald denial that he did not push the women employees by putting his hand on their chest and he was not aware of the complaint made by Santhanam. The Labour Court failed to look at the corroboration of evidence of M.W.2 and held that equally it is true that the second respondent-workman making allegation that it is due to the inter union rivalry, such false complaint has been laid against him. The evidence of M.W.2 is clear and cogent that she has given the written complaint against the second respondent workman in view of his misbehaviour with women co-employee. As per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in this kind of sensitive matter, the Labour Court is not expected to treat it in a light handed nature especially when the woman employee was abused before 150 persons. The dispute is when Santhanam asked the second respondent-workman to perform certain duties assigned by the management, the second respondent-workman used filthy language and hence, such incident cannot be treated as a trivial one. However, the Labour Court held that the incident require greater proof. Under these circumstances, this Court is not satisfied by the findings of the Labour Court and as such reinstatement of the second respondent-workman cannot be accepted. 19. In the counter statement filed by the management, they have stated that in such type of misconduct, reinstatement is not possible. In not known as to why the workman did not give evidence after the management witness were over. 20. Since this Court is of the view that the Labour Court had not dealt with the matter sensitively, the impugned award directing the management to grant 30% of backwages stands set aside. However, since the workman has put in six years of service and also a permanent worker, compensation is ordered apart from the amount which was settled by the petitioner company towards legal dues, which cheque was not realised by him so far, as alleged by the counsel for the workman. However, since the workman has put in six years of service and also a permanent worker, compensation is ordered apart from the amount which was settled by the petitioner company towards legal dues, which cheque was not realised by him so far, as alleged by the counsel for the workman. Apart from the amount already sent by way of cheque dated 16.01.2001 for a sum of Rs.14131.95, the workman is also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards full and final settlement towards all his claims. Since the amount is lying in deposit, the second respondent-workman is entitled to withdraw the same. The award of the Labour Court is set aside with a direction mentioned above. 21. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.