ORDER : Chitra Venkataraman, J. These writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 587/2000 dated February 2, 2005. W.P. No. 29957/2005 is filed by the worker and W.P. No. 4671/2007 is filed by the Management. The facts leading to the dispute placed before the Labour Court is as follows: 2. One Sathiyamurthy, the petitioner in W.P. No. 29957/2005 was employed in Chemplast Sanmar Limited, the petitioner management in W.P. No. 4671/2007, who happens to be the second respondent in W.P. No. 29957/2005. For the purpose of convenience, the facts projected in W.P. No. 29957/2005 and the status of the parties as in W.P. No. 29957/2005 is referred to herein. 3. The petitioner after the demise of his father sought for employment on compassionate ground since there was no scope for providing employment, the petitioner was appointed as apprentice in the second respondent concern for the period from July 8, 1991 to July 7, 1993 under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. It is stated by the second respondent that the petitioner worked as a Apprentice in plant III for the period from July 8, 1991 to July 7, 1993. There afterwards, the petitioner came forward to act as Contractor in the second respondent establishment. Thus the petitioner was given contract work for a period of six months from April 9, 1997 to October 8, 1997 for loading and unloading jobs. It was further extended for one more year from October 9, 1997. It is admitted by the petitioner herein that he was employed as a contractor for the said period. After October 8, 1998, the petitioner was not granted contract for further period and was given to one Kannan, under whom, the petitioner worked as a contract labour. According to the second respondent, since the petitioner and other contract labourers deliberately indulged in certain activities and swindled an amount, of Rs. 1,97,000/- on false claims, the services of the contractor was terminated by the second respondent. The petitioner however raised an Industrial Dispute against the conduct of the second respondent that he was employed by the second respondent from December 11, 1995 and that on March 8, 1999, his services had been terminated. The dispute was adjudicated toy the Labour Court. 1,97,000/- on false claims, the services of the contractor was terminated by the second respondent. The petitioner however raised an Industrial Dispute against the conduct of the second respondent that he was employed by the second respondent from December 11, 1995 and that on March 8, 1999, his services had been terminated. The dispute was adjudicated toy the Labour Court. Ultimately, the Labour Court agreed with the view of the second respondent that the petitioner worked as a contract labourer only and directed that in future vacancy, that petitioner given an employment and thus rejected the plea of the petitioner. As against this portion of the award, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 29957/2005. 4. As far as the second respondent, management is concerned, it is aggrieved by the direction given by the Labour Court directing the management to consider priority of employment to be given by the management while recruiting persons if the vacancies arise thereafter. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 29957/2005, although had raised grounds attacking the award on merits, however pleaded as regards the direction given to the second respondent in respect of providing employment to the petitioner on priority basis. 6. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that when once the Labour Court had found that the petitioner had no case, further direction issued directing the second respondent to give employment to the petitioner on priority basis, while considering filling up of vacancies is totally against the decision in L and T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udayakumar, (2008) 1 CLT 508. In the circumstances in so giving the direction, the Labour Court overstepped its jurisdiction. Hence, the said direction has to be quashed by this Court. 7. A perusal of the award passed by the first respondent shows that the petitioner was taken as an apprentice in the second respondent concern. The Labour Court pointed out that even as per 12(3) settlement, there was no condition that the legal representatives of the deceased employee should be given an employment in the second respondent concern-The petitioner's claim for a relief could be considered only if and when his services are terminated contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Labour Court pointed out that even as per 12(3) settlement, there was no condition that the legal representatives of the deceased employee should be given an employment in the second respondent concern-The petitioner's claim for a relief could be considered only if and when his services are terminated contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Labour Court further pointed out that there was hardly any material to show that the termination was illegal and that the petitioner admittedly was taken only as a labourer working under a Contractor. Consequently, the Labour Court rejected the prayer of the Petitioner herein. I agree with the findings of the Labour Court and there is hardly any material to show that the findings of the Court is not based on any material. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in dismissing W.P. No. 29957/2005. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed. 8. As regards the contention of the management in W.P. No. 4671/2007, challenging the order of the Labour Court giving direction to the management for priority to be given to the petitioner if a vacancy arises, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision Kumaresan N. v. P.O. Labour Court (supra) wherein this Court pointed out that the findings of the Tribunal that the termination is justified, but the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief of ex qratia payment for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. 9. In the decision L & T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. Udaya kumar (supra), the Apex Court considered the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as regards the direction given which goes beyond the relief sought for. The Apex Court held that the reliefs granted by the Courts has to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law. It is essential to maintain integrity of the legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. The Apex Court further pointed out that the order of the Tribunal must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the management the second respondent herein placed reliance on this passage, more so in the context of the findings of the Labour Court on this case. I agree with the said submission of the counsel for the second respondent. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the management the second respondent herein placed reliance on this passage, more so in the context of the findings of the Labour Court on this case. I agree with the said submission of the counsel for the second respondent. The Labour Court as a matter of fact had found that the petitioner as not in employment except as a contract labour, through the Contractor. As such, there is no such act of termination of employment. In the circumstances, further direction given by the Labour Court to consider the candidature of the petitioner on priority basis, hence, is devoid of any merits. In the circumstances, the direction given thus far exceeds the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as regards the dispute before it. The petitioner's claim on the termination of his employment, hence, lack logic. As such, the said direction necessarily has to be set aside. 11. In result, the W.P. No. 4671/2007 is allowed, thereby the direction issued by the Tribunal stands quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.