Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records in I.D.No.329 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, to quash the order dated 24.8.2001 and to remand the same to the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai for the evidence of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Anantha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. The second respondent said to be store helper working under the petitioner company was terminated from service without following the due process of law. Along with him several other persons were terminated. After failure of conciliation proceedings, four of them went before the Labour Court. Awards were passed holding against the petitioner that the action of the petitioner management is illegal and with a direction to reinstate them with all attendant benefits. The management filed four writ petitions against the award passed in respect of each one of the employees. 4. In W.P.Nos.13300 and 13313 of 2002, this Court (K.Chandru,J.) by order dated 27.3.2007 passed the following order:- “...3. I have heard the arguments of Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner Management and Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and have perused the records. (4.) Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that apart from the oral evidence, the Workmen have not produced any record to show that they have worked for sufficient number of days to claim the benefit of reinstatement. (5.) This argument is not available for the petitioner in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Only when the Management discharges the burden of refuting the contentions raised by the Workmen before the Labour Court, it can be gone into in the Writ Proceedings. The Labour Court, very correctly has stated that since the Writ Petitioner-Management is a registered factory, it should produce the statutory registers which are maintained by them so as to refute the contentions raised by the Workmen. On the contrary, no such document is filed. Therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned awards passed by the first respondent/Labour Court. Hence, these Writ Petitions fail and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will no order as to costs. On the contrary, no such document is filed. Therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned awards passed by the first respondent/Labour Court. Hence, these Writ Petitions fail and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will no order as to costs. (6.) By an interim order dated 21.09.2004, in W.P.No.13313 of 2002, this Court, directed the Writ Petitioner-Management to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the credit of I.D.No.328 of 1994, on the file of the Labour Court. Now that the Writ Petitions filed against the impugned awards have been dismissed, it is open to the second respondent Workmen to execute the award passed by the Labour Court, in the manner known to law." 5. Following the above said order, another writ petition No.15317 of 2002 was dismissed on 18.3.2011 by this Court (T.S.Sivagnanam,J.). 6. The present writ petition is last of the four cases. The fact in the present case is identical nature to the one which has been decided by this Court in the three writ petitions referred to above. 7. I have gone through the reasoning given by the learned Judge in the order dated 27.3.2007 dismissing the Writ Petition Nos.13300 and 13313 of 2002. I am respectful agreement with the said findings. There is no other plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.