JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. The writ petitioner is a cooperative textile processing mill located in Erode. Through this writ petition, the management challenges the award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D. No. 161 of 2010. By this award, the Labour Court held that the demotion of the concerned workman, C.A. Rathinavel, to the position of Supervisor was invalid, and his transfer to the dyeing factory in Trichy was also illegal. Consequently, the Labour Court directed that the workman be reinstated to the post of Assistant Dyeing Master from the date of his demotion, with continuity of service, back wages, and all other attendant benefits. 3. In the writ petition, a notice of motion was ordered on 21.12.2020, with permission granted for private notice as well. Upon receipt of the notice, the Respondent Trade Union entered an appearance through its counsel. No orders were passed in the Miscellaneous Petition. However, when the matter was taken up on 06.02.2025, the Respondent stated that the workman had retired from service. 4. The workman in question, C.A. Rathinavel, was employed as an Assistant Dyeing Master at the Petitioner Mills. He was dismissed from service by an order dated 04.02.2006 issued by the Managing Director of the Petitioner Mill, based on proven charges. Challenging this dismissal, he filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act . Accordingly, C.A. Rathinavel submitted his Revision Petition on 19.04.2006. As the proceedings were being delayed, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 25013 of 2006, seeking a direction to the Commissioner to consider and decide his Revision Petition. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.08.2006, directing the Commissioner to dispose of the Revision Petition (marked as Ex.R23). 5. Even earlier, C.A. Rathinavel had been transferred from Erode to Trichy by an order dated 29.09.2005. He challenged this transfer through W.P. No. 32064 of 2005. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 07.03.2012, with the Court holding that the transfer order issued by the management could not be interfered with (Ex.M2). Subsequently, his demotion and transfer were taken up by his trade union, the Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union (HMS), under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Government Labour Officer, Erode. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 07.03.2012, with the Court holding that the transfer order issued by the management could not be interfered with (Ex.M2). Subsequently, his demotion and transfer were taken up by his trade union, the Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union (HMS), under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Government Labour Officer, Erode. As the Conciliation Officer was unable to facilitate a settlement, a failure report was submitted to the Government on 16.10.2017. In response, the Government of Tamil Nadu, through G.O.(D1) No. 355 of the Labour and Employment Department dated 17.06.2010, referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Erode. The terms of reference were as follows: (1) Whether the reduction in rank of C.A. Rathinavel to the position of Supervisor was justified, and if not, what relief he is entitled to. (2)Whether the order of transfer of the workman to the dyeing factory at Trichy was justified, and if not, what relief is available to the workman. 6. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D. No. 161 of 2010 and issued notices to the parties involved. The trade union submitted a claim statement, asserting that Rathinavel was a member of the union and a permanent worker of the Petitioner Mills. He had been working as a Supervisor since 10.05.1979. The claim statement further highlighted that an earlier dispute in the Petitioner Mills concerning wages, grade, and uniforms for Supervisors and Shift In-charges. This dispute was adjudicated in I.D. No. 14 of 1995, resulting in an award dated 30.04.1998 (Ex.W2). In that award, the Labour Court concluded that Supervisors and Shift In-charges were "workmen" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , and held that their demands were justified. 7. The workman, C.A. Rathinavel, was issued a charge memo on 13.01.2005 on certain grounds. Following a so – called enquiry, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 04.02.2006. Challenging his dismissal, he filed a Revision Petition before the Director of Handlooms. The Revision Petition was allowed by an order dated 09.11.2006 (Ex.M4), setting aside the dismissal order and directing that the workman be placed in a lower post. Subsequently, by an order dated 11.02.2006, Rathinavel was demoted from the post of Assistant Dyeing Master to Supervisor. The order of transfer and the demotion were unjustified. The Revision Petition was allowed by an order dated 09.11.2006 (Ex.M4), setting aside the dismissal order and directing that the workman be placed in a lower post. Subsequently, by an order dated 11.02.2006, Rathinavel was demoted from the post of Assistant Dyeing Master to Supervisor. The order of transfer and the demotion were unjustified. Even after the High Court's order dated 21.12.2010, and the order of the Director of Handlooms dated 29.11.2011, the workman has not given proper employment and the post of supervisor is vacant of Erode. 8. The Management opposed the claim by asserting that the Revision Petition challenging the dismissal order dated 04.02.2006 had been dismissed. Since the charges of misconduct against the workman were proven, he was dismissed from service. In the Revision Petition, the Director had merely ordered his demotion. The workman's transfer was necessitated by operational exigencies and his challenge to the transfer had already been dismissed by this Court. He is also not a workman within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , rendering the dispute itself not maintainable. 9. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent Union examined the concerned workman, C.A. Rathinavel, as WW1 and submitted 11 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the Management, M/s. Dakshinamurthi and Mohanraj were examined as MW1 and MW2, respectively, and 24 documents were submitted, marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R24. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the workman’s transfer to the dyeing factory at Trichy was invalid. Consequently, he be reinstated to service in the position of Assistant Dyeing Master, effective from the date of his demotion, with back wages and continuity of service. 10. The Labour Court held that the dispute was maintainable, noting that an earlier award had already established that Supervisors and Shift In-charges qualified as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act . This position was also admitted by the two witnesses presented by the Management. The Labour Court further referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Management of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Lakshmiah & Anr., reported in 2002 (2) LLN 725. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “12. …In our considered opinion, the management has failed to substantiate its contention that the first respondent was only performing the duties of supervisory/ managerial character. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “12. …In our considered opinion, the management has failed to substantiate its contention that the first respondent was only performing the duties of supervisory/ managerial character. On the other hand, the evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant itself disclosed that the first respondent was only performing the duties of an ordinary skilled workman and nothing more.” ……. 13. ….Therefore, when there was no evidence, much less, acceptable evidence, tendered on behalf of the appellant to prove their stand that the first respondent was not a "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, the award impugned, in the writ petition rejecting the claim of the first respondent solely on that ground cannot be sustained.” 11. Regarding the Management's objection that the collective dispute was not maintainable due to the Respondent Trade Union's alleged lack of substantial support among the workmen in the Petitioner establishment, the Labour Court found otherwise. The Trade Union had produced its registration certificate and Form-E returns, marked as Ex.P9 to Ex.P11. The evidence revealed that the Trade Union was actively functioning within the Petitioner Mills and had a membership strength of 1,455 workers. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the Management, the Labour Court concluded that the union had the legitimate right to represent the workman's cause. 12. Regarding the allegations of misconduct covered in the charge memo dated 13.01.2005, the Labour Court found that the Management had not submitted either the workman’s explanation or the charge memo itself. Although a domestic enquiry had been conducted concerning the charge memo, no supporting documents were presented before the Court. The Labour Court emphasized that it was the Management's duty to substantiate the charges with credible evidence. While the Management claimed that material sent to the central prison had been returned as unsatisfactory, no correspondence from the prison department was produced to support this claim. The Management could not merely assert that the charges were proven in the enquiry without presenting convincing evidence to satisfy the Labour Court. Consequently, the Labour Court concluded that the Management had failed to prove the charges based on the charge memo dated 13.01.2005. 13. The Management could not merely assert that the charges were proven in the enquiry without presenting convincing evidence to satisfy the Labour Court. Consequently, the Labour Court concluded that the Management had failed to prove the charges based on the charge memo dated 13.01.2005. 13. Similarly, during the enquiry related to the charge memo dated 13.01.2005, another memo containing seven additional charges was combined with the initial charges, and a common order was passed instead of conducting two separate enquiries. As a result, the Labour Court held that the dismissal order was not valid. Since no relevant materials were produced before the Labour Court, it cannot that there was a valid order of dismissal or justify the consequential reduction in rank pursuant to the Revision Order. 14. Regarding the issue of transfer, the Labour Court found that it was tainted with malafides. During cross-examination, the witness MW2 admitted that no production work was taking place at the Trichy factory. This admission cast doubt on the legitimacy of the transfer to Trichy, suggesting suspicious circumstances. The order of the Director of Handlooms, dated 29.11.2011, had also stated that the transfer to Trichy was wrong and the workman should be provided with due employment. This further indicated that the transfer was motivated by ulterior reasons. Although the Management, in its written arguments, claimed that Rathinavel had been transferred back from Trichy to Erode, the initial transfer order to Trichy itself was not valid. On this basis, the Labour Court set aside both the reduction in rank and the transfer order. 15. The counsel for the Management relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3705 of 2000, M/s. D.C.M. Shri Ram Consolidate Ltd. vs. B.K. Gupta & Ors., dated 10.02.2015, to argue that the burden of proving whether a person is a "workman" lies on the workman himself, not on the Management. However, this judgment does not assist the Management's case. In the present matter, during the previous round of litigation, it had already been determined that Supervisors and Shift In-charges qualified as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act . Therefore, the Management cannot re-agitate this issue once again. 16. However, this judgment does not assist the Management's case. In the present matter, during the previous round of litigation, it had already been determined that Supervisors and Shift In-charges qualified as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act . Therefore, the Management cannot re-agitate this issue once again. 16. The counsel for the Respondent Union also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in Management of Oman Air by its District Sales Manager vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & Anr., in W.P. No. 31951 of 2014 and 3825 of 2015 dated 22.08.2024. In that case, a learned judge, while upholding the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the matter. The judgment also endorsed the grant of full back wages in cases of wrongful termination. 17. In light of the foregoing, the writ petition, W.P. No. 19418 of 2020, lacks merit and accordingly stand dismissed. No costs. Although it was reported that the workman has retired from service, and despite his earlier transfer back from Trichy to Erode, it is made clear that any dues available under the Award shall be recoverable by the Respondent Union from the Management and give it to the workman. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition, W.M.P. No. 24005 of 2020, is also stand dismissed.