JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed by the Executive Officer and the President of the Kuniyamuthur Municipality, Grade III, Coimbatore, Challenging the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.88 of 2004 dated 30.10.2008, by which, the second respondent was reinstated into service without backwages and other emoluments. 2. The industrial dispute was raised by the second respondent before the Labour Court after the conciliation proceedings failed. The case of the second respondent before the Labour Court was that she was employed as Section Clerk continuously from 09.02.1996 onwards, the petitioner along with Mrs.Lakshmi, Mrs.Bhuvaneshwari and Mr.Sivakumar were recognized as Daily workers with a consolidated pay of Rs.750/- per month by the Resolution No.226 dated 20.03.1998 passed by the Kuniyamuthur (Special Grade) Town Panchayat, which later was converted into Grade III, Municipality, as per G.O.Ms.No.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.05.1999, the second respondent was entitled to be appointed as Office Assistant in the regular post as she has been employed as daily wage worker even before 31.12.1996 and that she was working as Senior Section Clerk at the relevant point of time, that the third respondent issued instructions to appoint persons engaged as daily workers prior to 31.12.1996 in entry level posts and though the co-workers were recommended and appointed, the petitioner was not appointed and the petitioner was terminated from service on 28.02.2001 and therefore sought reinstatement with back wages and attendant benefits. 3. The petitioners resisted the dispute claiming that even though the Resolution was passed, the Resolution was not given effect to, that when the names were recommended as per G.O.Ms.No.125, the second respondent had abstained herself from attending duty and therefore her name was not considered. It was also contended that the second respondent was not employed prior to 31.12.1996 as daily wage worker and that since her earlier appointment was irregular without any order in writing, she cannot be granted the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.125 and therefore sought dismissal of the petition. 4. It was also contended that the second respondent was not employed prior to 31.12.1996 as daily wage worker and that since her earlier appointment was irregular without any order in writing, she cannot be granted the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.125 and therefore sought dismissal of the petition. 4. The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings, documentary as well as oral evidence found that the second respondent had been working as a Daily wage worker even before 31.12.1996, that there was no evidence on record to show that the second respondent absented from attending work at the relevant point of time, that the name of the second respondent was also recommended to be included in the list by the first petitioner and hence partially allowed the Industrial Dispute directing the petitioners to reinstate the second respondent and absorb her services by appointing her in the same grade of her co-workers namely, Mrs.Lakshmi, Mrs.Bhuvaneswari and Mr.Sivakumar. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners assailed the order of the Labour Court contending that the award has been passed contrary to the facts and the evidence let in by the parties. The learned counsel further contended that the second respondent was not employed on daily wage basis before 31.12.1996 and no evidence was produced by the second respondent to prove the same. Further since the second respondent was not in service when the recommendation was sent, rightly her name was omitted. The learned counsel also contended that the Labour Court failed to see that the second respondent had not produced any evidence to show that her services were terminated on 28.02.2001 and therefore sought the indulgence of this Court to set aside the award of the Labour Court. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the order passed by the Labour Court is sound and based on oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned counsel further contended that the second respondent has proved her case before the Labour Court and since there is no perversity, the award need not be interfered with. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the order passed by the Labour Court is sound and based on oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned counsel further contended that the second respondent has proved her case before the Labour Court and since there is no perversity, the award need not be interfered with. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 (9) SCC 468 [M.C.D. vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS]; (2010) 3 SCC 192 [HARJINDER SINGH vs. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION] and (2011) 6 SCC 584 [DEVINDER SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANAUR] to show that when the award of the Labour Court is well considered, just because the initial appointment is irregular, no interference is called for and reinstatement must be made with back wages. The learned counsel also relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.3062 of 2009 dated 21.10.2013, wherein this Court under similar circumstances directed the respondents therein to absorb the writ petitioner in any of the future vacancies in anyone of the Town Panchayats or Municipalities in Coimbatore Zone. Hence, he sought dismissal of the Writ Petition. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent supporting the case of the Writ Petitioners contended that the second respondent was not entitled to be absorbed to the entry level post as she was not in service as Daily Wage worker prior to 31.12.1996 and that she had left the service before her name was sponsored. 9. I have examined the award and the documents relating thereto and I find that there is no perversity or illegality in the award. All the documents produced before the Court were considered by the Labour Court. The first petitioner himself has issued Ex.L5 stating that the second respondent was receiving a consolidated pay of Rs.1200/- per month. Further, by Resolution No.226 dated 20.03.1998 marked as Ex.L1, the petitioners themselves acknowledging that the second respondent had been working as Daily wage employee even before 31.12.1996, converted the pay as consolidated. By Ex.L4 dated 04.02.2002, the first petitioner has recommend the name of the second respondent to be absorbed in the regular pay confirming that the second respondent has been working even prior to 31.12.1996. Now the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to go back on these letters. By Ex.L4 dated 04.02.2002, the first petitioner has recommend the name of the second respondent to be absorbed in the regular pay confirming that the second respondent has been working even prior to 31.12.1996. Now the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to go back on these letters. It is evident from Ex.L4 that if the second respondent had abandoned or abstained from attending the work, such a letter would not have been written. It is also clear that the writ petitioners have not produced any documents contrary to the above documents which admittedly can only be under their custody to show that the second respondent had absented from work. The arguments of the writ petitioners regarding the admission of the second respondent during cross-examination that she accepted that she had not produced any documents to prove her employment from 1996 to 2001 and that she had worked not less than 240 days in a year does not hold water in view of Exhibits-L1, L4 and L5. It is needless to point out that the documents would speak for themselves and would over weigh any oral statement contrary to the contents of the documents. Three persons, namely, Mrs.Lakshmi, Mrs.Bhuvaneswari and Mr.Sivakumar, who were employed along with the second respondent under similar post have been absorbed into regular post based on G.O.Ms.No.125. Despite the fact that the writ petitioners had also recommended the name of the second respondent, her name was not considered. The action of the third respondent amounts to discrimination and is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further from the facts, it can be inferred that since all other persons in the Municipality had been absorbed into other post at entry level, the services of the second respondent must have been terminated. Considering all these facts, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the second respondent without backwages and attendant benefits, on the principle of “No Work, No Pay”. 10. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court and hold that the second respondent is entitled to be absorbed in vacant entry level post in Town Panchayat or Municipality on par with Mrs. Lakshmi, Mrs. Bhuvaneswari and Mr. Sivakumar. 11. 10. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court and hold that the second respondent is entitled to be absorbed in vacant entry level post in Town Panchayat or Municipality on par with Mrs. Lakshmi, Mrs. Bhuvaneswari and Mr. Sivakumar. 11. In the result, the award passed by the Labour Court is affirmed and the petitioners are directed to implement the order of the Labour Court dated 30.10.2008, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.