ORDER : D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Puducherry, dated 04.03.2010 made in I.D.No.12 of 2004. 2. The factual background in which the Writ Petition arises is that the Workman - M.Venkatesan was employed in the petitioner – Management with effect from November 1990. While so, on 20.06.2002 there was an incident in the petitioner – Management and the same was reported to the police immediately. The said letter as such is extracted hereunder:- “Dear Sir, We are engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes at the below mentioned address since 1990. In our factory on June 12, 2002 at about 8.45 A.M two employees Mr.M.Venkatesan and Mr.M.Mohan had quarelled and hit each other which resulted in injury for both. Both the injured were sent to hospital for first aid but Mr.Venkatesan refused to go for first aid. After first aid when Mr.Mohan was coming back from hospital he was hit heavily by a group of about six persons near Sedarapet bus stop leaving him injured. After these incidents a group of about 20 people entered our factory premises on the same day evening and threatened us and our employees using harsh words. Further, the same group of people went to our Unit- II at, Mettupalayam Industrial Estate, and threatened our employees working there. Our employees coming to our factory from the nearby villages were also threatened by them on their way. Hence for smooth functioning of the factory we would request you to give suitable protection to our factory and our employees.” 3. It is the case of the Management that thereafter the Supervisor never reported for work. Under the said circumstances, on 26.06.2002 the petitioner was given a charge sheet and the charges read thus: “That on 12.06.2002 while you were on general shift you entered the main gate and marked your attendance at about 8.20 A.M but you arrived the shopfloor at about 8.40 A.M. That even after coming late you have disobeyed the orders of your superior and misbehaved. You had behaved in a disorderly and rude manner with your superior and created unwanted scene, using filthy language inside the factory. That you had suddenly assaulted your superior with an iron spanner on his head and caused severe injury and he was sent to hospital for first aid. You had behaved in a disorderly and rude manner with your superior and created unwanted scene, using filthy language inside the factory. That you had suddenly assaulted your superior with an iron spanner on his head and caused severe injury and he was sent to hospital for first aid. You have given a false complaint to the police in this regard. While your superior was returning back from the hospital you and other six out siders had severely attaked him near the bus stop. That on the same day i.e. 12.06.2002 at about 5.30 P.M you gathered near about 20 people and entered the factory premises and were trying to obstruct an ingress and e-gress of men and materials of the factory and trying to stop operations of the factory and threatened to create law and order problem. Subsequently Police men came to the factory to keep law and order. After this incident you did not turn up for duty till 19.06.2002 and subsequently you were placed under suspension with effect from 20.06.2002. That under these circumstances mentioned above rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action. You are hereby charged for breach of promise of modal standing order No.14 for committing the following misconducts. (i) Insubordination and disobedience (ii) Intimidating, threatening and assaulting superior within duty hours inside the factory premises where such act related to the employment. (iii) Conduct prejudicia to the interest of the company. (iv) Commission of act subversive of the discipline where the act committed inside and outside the factory premises.” 4. Thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted. In the domestic enquiry, the Management examined three witnesses. From the enquiry proceedings, it is seem, that on the respective dates when opportunity was granted to the Workman for cross examination, he did not avail the same. Towards the end of the domestic enquiry, he made a request to recall the witnesses and cross examine them. The said request was refused and the enquiry officer rendered his findings. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued, to which the Workman submitted an explanation detailing about the shortcomings during the enquiry. Thereafter, by an order dated 21.04.2003, the Workman was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised. Conciliation failed. Thereafter, the Claim Petition was filed. In the Claim Petition, it is the specific contention of the Workman that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter, by an order dated 21.04.2003, the Workman was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised. Conciliation failed. Thereafter, the Claim Petition was filed. In the Claim Petition, it is the specific contention of the Workman that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The petitioner was not given appropriate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses to prove the falsity of their deposition. 5. The Claim Petition was resisted by the Management. It is the case of the Management that the enquiry was conducted by duly affording opportunity and the principles of natural justice were complied with and procedures laid down under the law were scrupulously followed. Considering the seriousness of the charge and also the fact that the petitioner was irregular and habitual offender and was violent in nature, the punishment is appropriate. 6. With the above pleadings, the Labour Court took up the enquiry. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the parties. On behalf of the Workman Exhibits P.1 to P.20 were marked and on behalf of the Management Exhibits R.1 to R.21 were marked. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties. 7. Firstly, it found that the enquiry officer did not grant an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and came to a conclusion post-haste and therefore, the enquiry was without an opportunity. Further, it also considered about the merits of the charge. The Labour Court found that if the petitioner is at fault, certainly, the Management would have forwarded a police complaint against the petitioner, however, the Ex.R.9 – Letter is only for police protection and therefore, considered the said circumstances and the other evidences on record to hold that the evidences which are on record alone will not be sufficient to hold the charge as proved and thus, ordered that the Workman should be reinstated with full back wages and other attendant benefits and continuity of service. 8. Heard, Mr.P.Raghunathan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management and Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman. 9. Mr.P.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management would submit that the findings of the Labour Court in paragraph No.9 that no proper opportunity was given to the Workman is perverse. 8. Heard, Mr.P.Raghunathan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management and Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman. 9. Mr.P.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management would submit that the findings of the Labour Court in paragraph No.9 that no proper opportunity was given to the Workman is perverse. The learned counsel would take this Court through the enquiry report to submit that in respect of each of the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has recorded its finding and it is the Workman who did not avail the opportunity of cross examination. Therefore, the Labour Court findings in respect thereof is perverse. 10. Secondly, when the enquiry has been duly conducted and when the findings has been arrived at by the domestic enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary enquiry authority, the manner in which the Labour Court should exercise the power under section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is in a restricted form to only consider whether the findings are perverse or not and when there is ample evidence on record in the form of oral testimony of the witnesses whose version was not even controverted by cross examination, then the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the order of dismissal. When the Workman has indulged in violence, discipline has to be maintained in the premises and the Management has got every right to keep him away from the place of work. 11. In this case, the charge is that he took out a spanner and hit the Supervisor on his head, resulting in bleeding injury. Therefore, the Workman ought not to have been granted any relief by the Labour Court. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco Limited and Another, (2008) 5 SCC 554 more specifically relying upon paragraph No.31 to contend that unless the Enquiry Officer's view is perverse, the Labour Court should not interfere in the same merely because another view is possible. The learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Federal Court in Western India Automobile Association Vs. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Others , (1949) 51 BomLR 894 to contend that the relief of reinstatement should not be granted as a matter of course. The learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Federal Court in Western India Automobile Association Vs. The Industrial Tribunal, Bombay and Others , (1949) 51 BomLR 894 to contend that the relief of reinstatement should not be granted as a matter of course. When there is no plea of victimisation or lack of bonafide or malice normally such reinstatement would cause grave prejudice to the Management. When a workman who indulged in violence has been dismissed, and no plea of victimization or malafide is made, the relief of reinstatement should not have been granted. 12. Further, addressing his arguments relating to back wages, the learned counsel would first point out the marriage invitation of the petitioner which is produced wherein the petitioner described himself as a Labour Contractor. Therefore, when he is gainfully employed as a Labour Contractor and especially when there is no proper pleading or evidence on his part that he is not otherwise gainfully employed, the Labour Court ought not to have granted back wages. The learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Chand Vs. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation, (2023) SCCOnline 776 13. Per contra, Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman would submit that it is not enough for the Management to merely ask the Workman to immediately to cross examine the witnesses as and when they examined. The Workman should be given ample time to breath and then cross examine the witnesses. During the course of enquiry itself after the examination of P.W's.1, 2 and 3 the Workman had made a specific request that he wanted to cross examine the witnesses. The Management ought to have given an opportunity. The Labour Court has rightly found that the Enquiry Officer was post-haste in coming to the conclusion as he did not deem it fit to recall the P.W's.1 to 3 and grant the Workman an opportunity to cross examine. 14. The Management ought to have given an opportunity. The Labour Court has rightly found that the Enquiry Officer was post-haste in coming to the conclusion as he did not deem it fit to recall the P.W's.1 to 3 and grant the Workman an opportunity to cross examine. 14. It is his second submission that when the Labour Court has also considered the merits of the charges with the available evidence on record and has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the ID Act thereafter come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to prove the charges, then this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not interfere with the same and therefore, the award as such has to be sustainable. He would submit that in this case, not even the 17 B wages was paid inspite of an application, the wages are only deposited before the Labour Court. Therefore, the Workman should be permitted to withdraw the said amount of 17 B wages which is pending before the Labour Court. The Workman is now aged only 51 years and therefore, the award of reinstatement with back wages need not be interfered with by this Court. 15. By way of reply argument, the learned counsel for the Management reiterated the arguments relating to the perversity of the Labour Court award, he would also submit that even in the unlikely event, this Court should only consider imposing of compensation and not reinstatement given the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He would also further submit when in lieu of 17 B wages, when the Management thought it fit to reinstate him, by a communication dated 08.12.2022, without prejudice to its rights to continue this Writ Petition, the Workman also joined duty on 19.12.2022. Thereafter, he is also working and again for another misconduct, inspite of suspension, he has been paid wages. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 17. In this case, admittedly, the Management in their counter statement before the Labour Court did not make a plea that in the event of the Labour Court finding that the domestic enquiry proceedings was not fair not proper, they are willing to let in evidence before the Labour Court. 17. In this case, admittedly, the Management in their counter statement before the Labour Court did not make a plea that in the event of the Labour Court finding that the domestic enquiry proceedings was not fair not proper, they are willing to let in evidence before the Labour Court. Therefore, the question of passing a preliminary award and final award did not arise and rightly the Labour Court took the issue for consideration. The Labour Court in paragraph No.9 of the award has given its findings as follows:- “Then the management witnesses were examined on the side of the respondent company. The petitioner requested the respondent management to grant time for cross examining the said management witnesses. But the respondent management refused to the request of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer examined all the three witnesses. Hence, the management witnesses have not been cross-examined by the petitioner and then on the final hearing of the enquiry proceedings, again the petitioner requested to cross examine the said witnesses and the Enquiry Officer refused his request. Finally, the Inquiry officer decided the enquiry against the delinquent that all the charges framed against him are proved. Therefore, it is manifest that the Inquiry Officer was post-haste in concluding the enquiry and the Inquiry officer should not have come to a conclusion without cross examination of witnesses by the petitioner. Further, no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer to produce the witnesses on his side.” 18. On a consideration of the enquiry proceedings which are filed before this Court, partially the findings of the Labour Court is factually erroneous in as much as it could be seen that the Workman was given an opportunity to cross examine and he only did not avail the opportunity. To that extent, the finding of the Labour Court is factually incorrect. 19. As far as the second finding of the Labour Court which is canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Workman is that even on a belated stage when the Workman had made an application to cross examination atleast at that stage, the domestic enquiry officer ought to have given an opportunity. 19. As far as the second finding of the Labour Court which is canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Workman is that even on a belated stage when the Workman had made an application to cross examination atleast at that stage, the domestic enquiry officer ought to have given an opportunity. As a legal proposition that when the delinquent does not cross examine the witnesses immediately and thereafter a request for an opportunity has been made, certainly an opportunity can be given and denial of the same under all circumstances, cannot be justified. However, in this case, I find that throughout the proceedings the Workman had been conducting the enquiry only by making procedural claims. Nowhere in the pleadings he has come out with the proper explanation with reference to the merits of the charges. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I agree with the learned counsel for the Management that the finding of the Labour Court that due opportunity was not granted to the Workman is not correct. 20. Even agreeing with the learned counsel for the Management that the enquiry was fair and proper, still it was incumbent on the Labour Court to find whether there is any evidence to sustain the charge at all in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the Act. In this regard, the original incident as reported by the Management to the police on 19.06.2002 was extracted supra and the charge is different from the original version. Even though the original version goes as if two employees quarrelled, the charge was making allegations against the Workman in the present case that he disobeyed the senior, viz., the other Workman and behaved in a rude and disorderly manner with the other Workman and he suddenly assaulted the superior with an iron spanner in his head. It is for the Management to sustain the charge. 21. At the outset, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Management, the Court cannot sit as an appellate court and go into the adequacy of the evidence and will not substitute its own view even if two views are available on the basis of the evidence on record. However, in this case, the only piece of evidence is that the three witnesses who are examined by the Management. However, in this case, the only piece of evidence is that the three witnesses who are examined by the Management. A perusal of the evidence of the second witness, who was examined during the domestic enquiry viz., S.Rajkumar is that he gave first aid to the said Mohan for his injury and he narrates about going thereafter to the police station and seen an incident outside the factory premises also. The third witness – M.Poiyamozhi again is a hearsay witness who says that he heard that there was a fight between Venkatesan and Mohan. The only piece of evidence is that of the first witness in this case, who was examined during the domestic enquiry, viz., P.Velmurugan. His entire evidence is extracted hereunder:- 22. Therefore, there is no evidence that the workman did not obey the orders of his superior. There is absolutely no evidence that it was the workman's henchman who came thereafter; these are merely the charges levelled against the workman. Therefore, even in an exparte stage, that is in the absence of cross examination, when there is not even a single sentence of evidence that is available before the domestic enquiry, no exception whatsoever can be taken to that part of the findings of the Labour Court that there is no police complaint from the Management indicating errant behaviour on the part of the Workman. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Labour Court rightly concluded that the charges were not proved. To the said extent, I am in agreement with the Labour Court that in any event, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. 23. Now, coming to the question of relief that is to be granted to the Workman, it can be seen that it is a case of anger management and initially the Management itself stated that only two employees hit against each other. Therefore, this cannot be a case where the Workman can be denied the relief of reinstatement. While granting reinstatement, this Court considered the following aspects with reference to the grant of back wages, (i) The petitioner was in service from 1990 till 21.04.2003 and thereafter, the matter is pending in litigation; (ii) Secondly, the nature of the charge that is alleged against the Workman with reference to anger management and there was a bleeding injury on the other Workman. (iii) Even though not conclusively proved, in the marriage invitation, the petitioner was described himself as a Labour Contractor. That by itself will not prove any alternative employment or that he is gainfully employed. Further, before the Labour Court also there was no oral evidence where the Workman has got into the box and claimed that he was not in gainful employment. More importantly, even in the second show cause notice or in the claim statement, all along the Workman seems to be arguing only the technical issues of not granting opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and he has not come up with his own version of the incident so far. 24. All these factors are taken into by this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where back wages can be granted to the Workman. However, as fas as the 17 B wages is concerned, the Workman is entitled for the same and it has been held that even in a scenario where the Workman's relief was refused, the Workman still be entitled for the 17 B wages. Towards all claims of arrears of back wages, the amount which was deposited by way of 17 B wages can be permitted to be withdrawn by the Workman. It is seen that the Workman had already been reinstated and he is now been freshly suspended for yet another incident. If that may be so, it will be open for the Management to proceed in accordance with law and it is for the Workman to defend himself in the manner known to law. 25. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is partly allowed on the following terms, (a) the award of the Labour Court dated 04.03.2010 made in I.D.No.12 of 2004 is upheld in as much as it finds that there is no evidence in proof of the charge and in as much as it orders reinstatement of the Workman; (b) the award of the Labour Court is interfered and set aside in as much as it orders back wages to the Workman and the same is modified that the Workman will be reinstated into service, however, without back wages, but with continuity of service. The fact that the workman was already reinstated into service and is in suspension for a subsequent charge is recorded; (c) the 17 B wages that are deposited to the credit of the Industrial dispute along with accrued interest if any shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the Workman in full quit towards all claims of backwages and arrears and no further amount will be payable by the management; (d) The contentions regarding the current proceedings in respect of both sides are kept open; (e) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.