ORDER : The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the award, dated 01.11.2010 made in ID.No.171 of 2006, on the file of the 1st Respondent and to direct the 2nd Respondent Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he had joined the 2nd Respondent Management as a permanent employee on 22.10.2002 and he had performed his duties without any blemishes and his last drawn salary was Rs.2,900/-. The Petitioner did not report for duty from 5.01.2006 to 19.01.2006 and he went to the factory to resume his work on 20.01.2006 along with the medical certificate for his absence. But, the 2nd Respondent Management did not allow him to resume his work and asked him to come on 27.01.2006 and paid the bonus to him and obtained his signature in eight papers. Since he was not reinstated in service, in spite of his several requests, he had made an application on 11.3.2006 to the 2nd Respondent Management. Thereafter, he had raised an industrial dispute before the 1st Respondent in ID.No.171 of 2006 to direct the 2nd Respondent Management to reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. 3. Before the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, the 2nd Respondent management, by filing a written statement, had contended that the Petitioner had sent a resignation letter and pursuant to the same, 12(3) settlement was signed by the Petitioner before the Labour Officer on 02.02.2006 and pursuant to such settlement, the Petitioner had received a sum of Rs.16,000/- under the receipt dated 02.02.2006 before the Labour Officer and hence, the Petitioner had forfeited his right to re-employment and other benefits. The Petitioner had also agreed not to raise any dispute before any court as per the said settlement dated 2.2.2006 before the Labour Officer and hence, the claim of the Petitioner is not maintainable. 4. Before the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, the Petitioner was examined as WW.1 and on the side of the 2nd Respondent Management, one A.Suban, who was the Manager of the 2nd Respondent Management at the relevant point of time, was examined as MW.1 and Ex.M1 and Ex.M2 were marked. Ex.M1 is the original receipt and signatures, dated 2.2.2006 and Ex.M2 is the copy of 12(3) settlement, dated 2.2.2006. Ex.M1 is the original receipt and signatures, dated 2.2.2006 and Ex.M2 is the copy of 12(3) settlement, dated 2.2.2006. The 1st Respondent/ Labour Court, relying on the settlement, dated 2.2.2006, had dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner by the impugned award. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed, seeking the reliefs as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the 1st Respondent had failed to consider the evidence of MW.1, who had deposed that the alleged settlement under Section 12(3) was not witnessed and signed by any witness and that the 2nd Respondent was ready to give employment to the Petitioner and also failed to consider his evidence that the alleged settlement was not entered before the Labour Officer. He would further contend that the resignation letter, based on which, the alleged settlement was entered into between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent, was not produced and marked by the 2nd Respondent before the 1st Respondent and hence, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and consequently, the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in this Writ Petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent has contended that the Petitioner had entered into a 12(3) settlement and pursuant to the same, he had received a sum of Rs.16,000/- from the Management and the receipt for the same was also filed before the 1st Respondent under Ex.M1 and therefore, the Petitioner has no locus-standi to raise any industrial dispute before the 1st Respondent that the said settlement entered into between the parties is not genuine and further contend that the Management had obtained his signature by coercion. Considering the said facts, the 1st Respondent had rightly dismissed the claim of the Petitioner, which warrants no interference by this Court. 7. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. 8. On perusal of the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that the resignation letter, based on which the settlement was entered into between the parties, was not produced and marked before the 1st Respondent/Labour Court. This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. 8. On perusal of the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that the resignation letter, based on which the settlement was entered into between the parties, was not produced and marked before the 1st Respondent/Labour Court. Though the said fact is denied by the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent, on perusal of Ex.M2, settlement dated 2.2.2006, it is seen that it is in printed form, containing one page and at the bottom, the signature of the Petitioner was found and it was not witnessed and signed by any witness. Like wise, Ex.M1 receipt is also in printed form and signature of the Petitioner was found in Ex.M1. 9. It is further seen from the evidence let in before the 1st Respondent by MW.1, who was the Manager of the 2nd Respondent Management that in his cross examination, he had deposed that no witness had signed in the 12(3) settlement, Ex.M.2 and the same was not signed in the presence of the Labour Officer and that the Labour Officer was not available at that time and that it was also agreed that the Management would provide reemployment to the Petitioner. The relevant portion of oral evidence of MW.1 is extracted as under:- xxx xxx 10. Further, this Court also finds no evidence both oral and documentary let in by the 2nd Respondent to disprove the allegations of the Petitioner. On the other hand, as stated above, the Petitioner had let in evidence to substantiate his claim to the effect that there was no witness to Ex.M2, 12(3) settlement, dated 2.2.2006 and the said settlement was not entered into before the Labour Court. Even the evidence let in by MW.1 on behalf of the 2nd Respondent Management that would go to prove the claim of the Petitioner. As stated above, it was also admitted in his evidence that a copy of the resignation letter, based on which the alleged settlement was arrived at between the parties, was not produced and marked before the Labour Court. 11. As stated above, it was also admitted in his evidence that a copy of the resignation letter, based on which the alleged settlement was arrived at between the parties, was not produced and marked before the Labour Court. 11. For the reasons stated above, in the absence of any material to disprove the allegations of the Petitioner on the side of the 2nd Respondent Management, this Court is of the considered view that without taking note of the said evidence of MW.1 let in, during his cross examination and the aforesaid facts, the Labour Court had dismissed the claim of the Petitioner, which is erroneous and without jurisdiction and hence, the impugned award is to be rejected. Consequently, though the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement, with continuity of service, it is just and proper that 50% of back wages can be allowed. 12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed in part, with the following directions:- (i). The impugned award, dated 01.11.2010 made in ID.No.171 of 2006, on the file of the 1st Respondent, is quashed. (ii). The 2nd Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service. (iii). The 2nd Respondent is directed to pay 50% of the back wages to the Petitioner, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv). There shall be no order as to costs.