Judgment M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. The management has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned award dated 11.3.2002 passed in Industrial Dispute No.322/1999 on the file of Labour Court, Coimbatore and quash the same and consequently direct the Labour Court to conduct a fresh trial by taking into account the report of the Forensic Department dated 9.4.2012. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with back wages in I.D.No.322 of 1999. Before the Labour Court it was contended by the management that the second respondent-employee had given a resignation letter on his own on 29.7.1998, which was also accepted by the Management on 30.7.1998 and he was relieved from the employment. The Labour Court, while ordering reinstatement and back wages, found that the resignation letter given by the employee, which was marked as Ex.M3, was disbelieved by the Labour Court and also rejected the subsequent documents, viz., Exs.M4 and M5, relieving the employee from the employment. The Labour court ultimately found that the termination of the employee as unlawful and ordered reinstatement and back wages. 3. Aggrieved over the order passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.322/1999, the management filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7781 of 2003. This court, by order dated 23.12.2009, in paragraph Nos. 7 to 11 of its order, confirmed the findings of the Labour Court and found that the management had failed to prove the truth and genuineness of Ex.M3 resignation letter. Further, this court confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. 4. Now, after a lapse of more than four years the management has filed the present writ petition seeking the above said reliefs. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the dismissal of the writ petition, viz., W.P.No.7781 of 2003, the records were sent back to the Labour Court, Coimbatore. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the management, on its own and sent the same to the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore for verification of the signature of the second respondent. The second respondent's signature was then forwarded to the Forensic Department, Chennai for comparison. The Forensic Department had given a finding in favour of the management stating that Ex.M3 resignation letter was signed and written by the second respondent. The second respondent's signature was then forwarded to the Forensic Department, Chennai for comparison. The Forensic Department had given a finding in favour of the management stating that Ex.M3 resignation letter was signed and written by the second respondent. After getting the report from the Forensic Department, the present writ petition has been filed by the management stating that the award passed by the Labour court have to be set aside and the Labour Court should be directed to conduct a fresh trial by taking into account the report of the Forensic Department. 6. So far as the relief sought for in the writ petition is concerned, the first portion of the prayer is to quash the award dated 11.3.2002 passed in I.D.No.322 of 1999 and the consequential prayer to is to direct the Labour Court to conduct fresh trial. 7. With regard to the first portion of the prayer, this court had already confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon the following judgments:- (i) The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Pallavan Salai, Madras v. K. Venugopal, 2009 (3) CTC 513 wherein, a Division Bench of this court held that a writ petition can be challenged in respect of a separate cause of action and a review application cannot be filed on this ground. (ii) State of Haryana and others v. M.P. Mohla, 2007 (1) 1 SCC 457 wherein, the Apex court held that if a subsequent cause of action has arisen in the matter of implementation of a judgment, a fresh writ petition may be filed as a fresh cause of action has arisen. 9. In the case on hand, this Court as well as the Labour Court has categorically found that Ex.M3 resignation letter given by the employee was not that of the employee. After suffering an adverse finding by this court as well as by the Labour court, the management, after the dismissal of the writ petition, on its own, obtained the report from the Forensic Science Department with regard to Ex.M3 letter and filed the present writ petition to find out the truth and genuineness of the document. 10. The petitioner-management contended that the Forensic Department had given a finding with regard to the genuineness of the document in favour of the management. 11. 10. The petitioner-management contended that the Forensic Department had given a finding with regard to the genuineness of the document in favour of the management. 11. The petitioner-management should have taken the steps at the earliest point of time i.e., before the Labour Court while conducting I.D. No.322 of 1999. That apart, even the finding given by the Forensic Department is not conclusive and the same have to be established only by adducing acceptable evidence. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the management has not filed any appeal as against the order passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.7781 of 2003. Therefore, the order passed by this court has become final. That being the case, filing of the second writ petition seeking to quash the award passed in I.D.No.322 of 1999, which was already confirmed in W.P.No.7781 of 2003 cannot be entertained. Only if the award passed in I.D.No.322 of 1999 is set aside, the consequential relief, i.e., to direct the Labour court to conduct fresh trial will arise. When the award passed in I.D.No.322 of 1999 was confirmed by this court in the earlier writ petition, that cannot be interfered by this court again in the writ petition and therefore, the consequential relief also cannot be granted. If this writ petition is entertained, it would virtually amounts to nullifying the earlier order passed in W.P.No.7781 of 2013, which cannot be done. 12. It is needless to say that the order passed by the learned Single Judge can be interfered only by a Higher Forum and not by this court in an another writ petition. If the order passed by the learned Single Judge is interfered in this writ petition, it virtually amounts to sitting on appeal over the said order or on review over the said order, which cannot be done under the law. Merely because the petitioner had obtained a report from the Forensic Science Department in its favour, that too, without notice to the employee, shall not give rise to fresh cause of action. 13. In these circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.