Judgment :- The Writ Petition is filed by the Tourism Development Corporation of Tamil Nadu challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.67 of 2000 dated 20.11.2006. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent without backwages and other attendant benefits. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 06.08.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Though the second respondent was served as early as 24.9.2007, he has not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel. 3. It is seen from the records that the second respondent was employed as kitchen mate in the hotel run by the petitioner -Corporation at Pichavaram near Chidambaram. He was earlier dismissed from service, which lead to raising a dispute in I.D.No.456 of 1992 and the Labour Court, Cuddalore directed re-instatement by its award dated 10.5.1994. After the award, the workman was posted in Hotel Tamil Nadu at Melmaruvathur. According to the workman, since he has went to the Court and got a favourable award, the management was nourishing a ground against him and waiting for an opportunity to send him out of service. But however, it is seen from the records that while the workman was working in the shift on 29.1.1998, it was found that a hot water carrying pipe in the hotel was found broken and when the manager of the hotel questioned the workman, he presumed that the complaint must have been given by one casual worker, by name, G.Kumar. When the said Kumar came back to work after lunch, the workman went and threatened him as to why he had made a complaint to the manager and also drew a knife and stabbed him in his cheek. At the time of the incident, there were other co-workers, namely, Sunil Kumar, P.V.Prasad, Rangan and others were present in the hotel. On coming to know about the incident, he was placed under suspension on 30.1.1998 and on 31.3.1998, a charge memo was given to the workman by the management. As the explanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted and in the report of the Enquiry Officer, the workman was found guilty. Based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service on 23.1.1999. 4. As the explanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted and in the report of the Enquiry Officer, the workman was found guilty. Based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service on 23.1.1999. 4. Thereafter, the workman raised a dispute before the Labour Officer and the said Officer, as he could not bring about any mediation, gave a failure report dated 27.12.1999. In the meanwhile, in the criminal case filed against the workman, trial was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantagam in C.C.No.68 of 1998 and by judgment dated 07.10.1999, he was acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt. On the strength of the failure report obtained by the Labour Officer, the workman filed a claim statement before the Labour Court on 27.1.2000. The said claim statement was registered as I.D.No.67 of 2000 and notice was issued to the management. The petitioner - management filed a counter statement dated nil December, 2000. 5. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1. On the side of the management, one M.Cecil Kumar was examined as M.W.1 and G.Kumar, who was injured by the workman was examined as M.W.2. On the side of the workman, six documents were filed and marked as Exs.W.1 to W.6 and on the side of the management, seven documents were filed and marked as Exs.M.1 to M.7. In the sworn statement given by Kumar, he had stated that when he went and knock the door of the manager, the workman came from behind and attacked him with a knife and he got injured on the left jaw and the blood was flowing. Two workmen, namely, P.K.Prasad and Ranjan caught hold of Narayanan and Ranjan snatched away the knife from him. By that time, the Manager came out of the room and started enquiring about the incident and he was admitted to the hospital. The injured person along with Ranjan went and gave a police complaint before the Melmaruvathur Police Station. He also took treatment from the hospital at Madurantagam.6. However, the Labour Court on the appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that though the Enquiry Officer found charges 1 and 2 partially proved, there was no proper witness on both sides to prove the charges before the Court. He also took treatment from the hospital at Madurantagam.6. However, the Labour Court on the appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that though the Enquiry Officer found charges 1 and 2 partially proved, there was no proper witness on both sides to prove the charges before the Court. The Labour Court found that there were contradictions in the evidence of M.W.1 and M.W.2 and on the basis of the contradictory evidence, the Court could not come to a definite conclusion that the workman assaulted Kumar with a knife and he got injured in his cheek. The contradiction found by the Labour Court was that in one place, he had stated at right cheek and in another place, the Manager gave a statement that a cut injury was on his neck. It is not clear as to how this could be said to be contradictory as two persons were giving statements on their own. But the fact that the knife was used and there was an injury suffered by the workman is not denied and it must be noted that it was a criminal trial where charges will have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt; on the other hand, if preponderance of probabilities are found, then the domestic enquiry Officer can hold the charge sheeted workman guilty. 7. The contradiction pointed out by the Labour Court looks as if the Labour Court was trying the matter like the criminal trial covered by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in this context, learned counsel appearing for the management referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag V. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Haldia and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764 for contending that in such a situation it does not even contemplate conducting of a domestic enquiry, whereas in the present case, an enquiry was conducted against the workman, wherein the charges were proved. Hence, the findings of the Labour Court that there was no witness to support the matter in the Court only shows ignorance of the Labour court. Hence, the findings of the Labour Court that there was no witness to support the matter in the Court only shows ignorance of the Labour court. In the present case, evidence was let in before the Labour Court and the person who was assaulted himself was examined and had given a sworn statement, nothing could be impeached from the evidence of the said Kumar, examined as M.W.2 in the charges levelled against the workman, namely, he has physically assaulted the co-worker with a knife in the presence of the other worker. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the second respondent with reference to the same incident. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court do not find that a case has been made out to interfere with the penalty imposed by the Tourism Corporation and the Labour Court exceeded its limit by ordering reinstatement of the second respondent, who was responsible for causing grievous injury on a co-worker. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the award stands set aside. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 stands closed.