The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's decision is based on factual findings and interpretation of key legal provisions, and the Labour Court's decision does not require reappreciation by the High Court.

P. Jyothimani, J.

1. The writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court dated October 15, 2007 in I.D. No. 123/2003. On the industrial dispute raised by the second Respondent, the Labour Court under the impugned award, directed for reinstatement of the Petitioner with backwages and all benefits. The Respondent/management before the Labour Court filed the present writ petition challenging the said award.

2. The second Respondent was employed under the Petitioner as a Mechanic Trainee in 1971 and he is stated to have been orally terminated by the Petitioner management on September 20, 2002 and the last drawn salary of the second Respondent was Rs. 2340/- plus daily batta. The second Respondent sent a notice on November 16, 2002, for which the Petitioner issued a reply on November 30, 2002 stating that the second Respondent had worked from 1984 to 1991 only. Therefore, the second Respondent raised the industrial dispute. The second Respondent has also stated that the Petitioner has many other sister concerns including a cinema theatre and the Petitioner used to depute the second Respondent to work in the cinema theatre also which is under the same management and the Petitioner deducted EPF contributions and remitted in the accounts of the cinema theatre.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Petitioner before the Labour Court it was the stand of the Petitioner herein that the second Respondent was running a finance business and therefore, he abruptly stopped from coming to the job from 1993 onwards and after 1993, there was no relationship of employer-employee between the Petitioner and the second Respondent. It is stated that after the second Respondent closed his finance firm in 1998, he again demanded job and since there was no availability of job, the same was denied and it was stated in the reply notice. It was denied that the second Respondent was terminated orally from September 20, 2002.

4. Before the Labour Court on behalf of the second Respondent, the workman was examined and five documents were marked as Exhibits W-1 to W-5, while on the side of Petitioner management, four witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked as Exhibits M-1 to M-8. The Labour Court considered the case of management that the second Respondent had never been employed in the Petitioner management and as and when there were defects in engines, for repairing the same, the second Respondent used to come and do the work and get the salary. However, the Labour Court found that in the reply notice issued by the Petitioner management under Exhibit W-2, a contrary stand was taken to the effect that the second Respondent joined in the Petitioner management in the year 1984 and in the year 1993, with a desire to start a finance firm along with his wife and father-in-law, he abruptly left the job and therefore, there was a candid admission by the Petitioner that the second Respondent was employed under the Petitioner management till 1993 from 1984.

5. The Labour Court also considered the counter filed by the Petitioner management before it, wherein it was admitted that the second Respondent joined the job in 1984 and with a desire of doing some private business, he abruptly left the job in 1993-94 and thereafter conducted the finance business in the name 'Vijayalakshmi Finance', and therefore, from 1993 onwards there was no employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the Labour Court has found that it was a candid admission by the Petitioner management that the second Respondent worked as employee from 1984 to 1993.

6. The Labour Court has further found that the case of the Petitioner management by relying upon Exhibit M-7 that the second Respondent had abruptly left the job in 1993 after obtaining Provident Fund is not tenable on facts. The Labour Court has found that under Exhibit M-7 which is an application given by the second Respondent workman for getting provident fund benefits, wherein it is stated that he was wo