Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3445 of 1997 whereby the request of the second respondent herein for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus was granted. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus: Pursuant to the acquisition of lands to the extent of 25 cents in S.No.94/2F belonging to the family of which the second respondent was also a member, for establishing the Cheyyar Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, the second respondent was given appointment as casual worker by order dated 3. 1989. In terms of G.O.No.656, Labour and Employment Department dated 26. 1978, the Government has formulated a scheme whereby all public sector undertakings are required to recruit at least one member of each family displaced on account of the acquisition of the lands for any project for such public sector undertakings. Though the appointment was made on 3. 1989, the said order was cancelled on 3. 1992 only on the ground urged therein. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.841 of 1993. The Labour Court while disposing of the said petition held that the appointment of the petitioner therein was irregular and hence the petitioner had no vested right to claim regularization of appointment and hence the order of termination was to be sustained. Under such circumstances, the second respondent herein filed W.P.No.3445 of 2007 . After hearing the submission made on either side and after looking into the materials available on record, learned Single Judge took the view that the order of the Labour Court in I.D.No.841 of 1993 has to be quashed and the writ petition is to be ordered in full. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/second respondent in the writ petition has brought forth this writ appeal. .3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned Senior Counsel R. Viduthulai, would submit that the appointment originally made in 1989 was thoroughly irregular. At that time as per the procedure, the appointment should have been made by the Employment Exchange, but it was not done so. .3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned Senior Counsel R. Viduthulai, would submit that the appointment originally made in 1989 was thoroughly irregular. At that time as per the procedure, the appointment should have been made by the Employment Exchange, but it was not done so. Apart from that, though consent letters given by the members of the family was subsequently withdrawn and considering all those things, the Labour Court had taken the view that it was not a regular appointment and hence the learned Single Judge should have sustained the order of the Labour Court, but has taken an erroneous view and therefore it has got to be set aside. Added further, learned Senior Counsel that before allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has not addressed the question whether the respondent was entitled to backwages, but has simply allowed the writ petition in full, which would mean that the appellant was also entitled to backwages, but, the second respondent is not entitled to. Though he was appointed in the year 1989, he was terminated in the year 1992 and all along from the time of his termination, he was not served anywhere and the learned Senior Counsel added further that whenever there is an order for reinstatement, backwages is not an automatic one in every case. Awarding backwages depend upon the length of service, which must be considered before any order is made. Relying upon a decision in General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh reported in 2005(5) Supreme Court Cases 591, learned Senior Counsel would submit that before awarding backwages, the duty is cast upon the authority to consider the method or mode of appointment, the nature of duties discharged by the employee, the length of service, and other relevant factors. But, in the instant case, the respondent was appointed on temporary basis and he was also aware of the fact that the appointment was not also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He had also worked only for three years from 1989-1992. Under such circumstances, if the above facts are considered, it is not a fit case where backwages could be ordered and hence that part of the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. Further added the learned counsel, in the instant case, he has been subsequently reinstated in the year 2005. Under such circumstances, if the above facts are considered, it is not a fit case where backwages could be ordered and hence that part of the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. Further added the learned counsel, in the instant case, he has been subsequently reinstated in the year 2005. If the Court feels it fit in the instant case, backwages can be ordered from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge and not for the earlier period and hence the appeal has got to be allowed. 4. Contrary to the above, Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the appeal does not merit whatsoever. Two contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge by the respondent and both the contentions were rightly rejected. The first contention that was raised was that the conveyance of the was executed in the year 1991 and that was only a formal and learned Senior counsel would further add that the acquisition proceedings have been commenced in the year 1988 and though the lands were actually taken during 1988 and further learned Single Judge has pointed out the finding of the Labour Court that it was irregular appointment on the assumption that some fictitious documents have come into existence in the year 1991. Added further, after the consent letters were given by joint pattadars, on the strength of this, appointment was already made and it would be considered as a valid consent for the appointment and withdrawal of the consent could not be permitted and hence therefore on that ground also appointment of the second respondent could not be terminated. Learned Single Judge, after assessment of the facts and circumstances and legal position, has rejected both the grounds, which in the opinion of this Court, is a well considered one and the said finding of the learned Single Judge is not in dispute. Hence, that part of the appeal challenging the finding of the learned Single Judge as to the quashing of the termination order may not fail and hence that part of the order is dismissed. .5. In so far as the backwages is concerned, learned Senior counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent was appointed in the year 1989 and he was terminated in the year 1992. .5. In so far as the backwages is concerned, learned Senior counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent was appointed in the year 1989 and he was terminated in the year 1992. It is true that he was originally appointed as a casual worker, but termination order passed has been found to be illegal. Under such circumstances, if no such termination had been passed, he would have continued the work and no averments have been made in the petition to the effect that the relevant period from 1992 till the time he was again put in service, he was not in service or employment or getting any benefit there from. Thus, because of termination, he was forced to remain idle. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case where backwages has got to be ordered., Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that if the Court takes the view that he did not work during the relevant period as casual worker, the Court can work out on equitable ground properly for the relevant period. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made. As rightly pointed out by the second respondent, the second respondent was appointed as casual worker and he was terminated from service in 1992. But the termination order was challenged before the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed an award on 13. 1996 in I.D.841 of 1996 upholding the termination order which was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition in No.3445 of 1997. The learned Single Judge set aside the award of he Labour Court. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the backwages can be awarded from the date of the order of the Labour Court dated 13. 1996. The wages has to be calculated till the time of the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the second respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the services of many of the persons who were given temporary appointment in the year 1989 like the second respondent were regularized. Under such circumstances, there is no impediment to regularise the services of the second respondent from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge. From that time onwards he is entitled to backwages on regular basis. Under such circumstances, there is no impediment to regularise the services of the second respondent from the date of the order of the learned Single Judge. From that time onwards he is entitled to backwages on regular basis. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge in respect of termination is sustained. With the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of. It is also made clear that the second respondent is eligible for continuity of service from the date of his appointment.