ORDER : G. Narendar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is seen that the respondent is served and remained absent. This Court vide Order dated 19.06.2014 has held "service is sufficient" in respect of the respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner/employer that the workman was irregular in attending and executing the job assigned to him and that he had applied for a leave on 19.04.2011 and thereafter, he did not turn up for duty and that he has approached the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming that he was refused permission to attend to his duty. Upon the said allegations, a dispute was raised before the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide interim direction dated 23.04.2012 had directed the respondent/workman to report to the duty as an interim measure. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner/employer that though the interim direction was granted on 23.04.2012, the respondent/workman reported to duty on 27.04.2012 in the morning and left the work place at 1.00 p.m. and thereafter has not returned to duty nor reported for work. He would further submit that from that date till today, the petitioner/employer has not reported for work. He further submits that even before the Labour Court, the petitioner/employer had always expressed its willingness to take back the respondent/workman and that it is the respondent/workman, who has deliberately abstained from duty. 5. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence, more particularly, a letter dated 30.4.2012, has been pleased to accept the plea of the respondent/workman that it is the petitioner/employer, who is refusing permission to continue his employment. It is seen that the letter, which is marked as Ex.W1 dated 30.04.2012 bear no acknowledgement. Neither has any material like postal acknowledgement placed before the Labour Court to demonstrate that the said letter has been received by the petitioner/employer. In the absence of the same, the reliance placed on by the Labour Court on the said letter is contrary to facts and the claim of the workman is unsubstantiated. 6. In the light of the fact that the petitioner/employer had expressed its willingness to reinstate the workman to duty, the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent/workman, cannot be found fault with. 7. 6. In the light of the fact that the petitioner/employer had expressed its willingness to reinstate the workman to duty, the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent/workman, cannot be found fault with. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that till date the respondent/workman has failed to report to duty. Hence, he would submit that the direction regarding payment of back-wages is illegal and unsustainable. He would "submit that the respondent/workman, who has refused to report to the duty is not entitled to the said relief. It is seen that the Labour Court has got carried away by the fact that of the respondent/workman having reported to the duty pursuant to the interim order. Except the production of Ex.M9 which is a gate pass, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the respondent/workman thereafter continued in employment and has been regularly reporting to work after the leave taken on 19.04.2011. 8. A perusal of the material on record would disclose that the workman has not placed any material to demonstrate the fact that the petitioner/employer has refused to reinstate him into service, In view of the fact, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the writ petition is required to be partly allowed and it is accordingly partly allowed. The respondent/workman is entitled to reinstatement in accordance with the terms of the Award passed by the Labour Court. As regards the order entitling the respondent/workman back-wages from the date of refusal till the date of his reinstatement is required to be interfered with and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above