ORDER
Janardhanam, J.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is:
“….to call for the records in I.D.No.347 of 1981 on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 16.12.1983 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case”.
2. One V. Kothandapani (respondent-1) was working as a watchman in the Personnel Department of Lucas-TVS Ltd. Padi, Madras – 50 (petitioner) with effect from April, 3, 1978 on a consolidated salary of Rs.375 per mensem. He was terminated from service with effect from April 2, 1979. Again he was taken in service in service in the same department with effect from April 17, 1979 and again terminated from service with effect from April 16, 1980. He was drawing Rs. 525 per month at the time of the last termination. The termination had been challenged by respondent-1 by raising industrial Dispute, which had been referred by the Government to the Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Madras (rcspondent-2), for adjudication. Respondcnt-2 in turn, passed an award dated December 16, 1983 holding that the termination of the service of the petitioner is abinitio void and inoperative and declaring that the petitioner continues to be in service with all consequential benefits, namely, backwages and other benefits, if any. The award of respondent-2 had been challenged by the petitioner in the present action invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief as aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that she was not at all canvassing the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order relatable to the continuance in service of respondent-1 employee, inasmuch as the petitioner concern had confirmed respondent-1 as its permanent employee and conferred all other benefits, as available to him and what all challenge she would make, is relatable to the quantum of backwages to the period of such non-employment. In elaboration what she would submit is that it is not as if the court is denuded of power to exercise its direction to make a suitable order regarding the quantum of back-wages to be paid to the worker during the period of non-employment. She would further urge that since the management of the petitioner-concern was generous enough to provide him appointment, on the eve of the filing of the writ petition and also confirmed him in the service, giving him all the benefits of the service, without awaiting the result of the writ petition, added by the giving up of the challenge as relatable to the continuance in service of respondcnt-1, as ordered by respondent-2, Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Madras, it is but proper for this Court to order backwages quantified in a reasonable sum for the period of non-employment of respondent-1 under the petitioner.
4. The submissions of learned counsel, though appear to be attractive, cannot at all be countenanced, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is noted if the petitioner-concern conferred certain benefits on respondent-1 to which he is entitled to on its own accord and what all benefits conferred upon him are the resultant products, pursuant to the mandates and dictates of law. In such a situation, no reduction in the backwages to the period of non-employment of respondent-1 under the petitioner is permissible. The submissions of learned counsel on this aspect of the matter are therefore rejected as meritless.
5. The writ petition, as such, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.