ORDER : T.S. Sivagnanam, J. The challenge is to an award of the Labour Court dated April 22, 1999 in I. D. No. 382/1979, the Management is the writ petitioner. 2. Mr. Ravindharan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the prayer in the writ petition is to quash the award in its entirety, the Management is aggrieved only to the extent of the relief granted in favour of the workman in paragraph 11 of the award in all other respects, the award is in favour of the management and therefore, the prayer in the writ petition is restricted to seeking to quash paragraph 11 of the Award alone. In view of the said submission, the question to be decided in the present writ petition is as to whether the labour Court was justified in granting back wages and other attendant benefits from the date of termination i.e. on January 9, 1979, till the date of award i.e. April 22, 1999. 3. Notice was ordered to the second respondent in the writ petition and the office note states that the notice, which was sent had returned unserved with endorsement "left". Therefore, this Court by order dated November 16, 2009, directing substituted service by effecting paper publication. Accordingly, paper publication was effected on November 19, 2009 and the case was posted for final hearing thereafter. On November 27, 2009, the office was directed to print the name of the second respondent in the cause list and posted the matter for hearing today. Even today, there is no representation by the second respondent nor by any counsel on his behalf, therefore, I proceed to dispose of this matter on its merits. 4. The contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner i.e. that the petitioner is a pharmaceutical company and the second respondent was one of his employees and he was working as a statistical clerk. The second respondent was a chronic absentee since 1969 and he was absenting beyond his leave entitlement. During the year 1976 out of the total 276 days, he absented for 111 days, during 1977 of the 244 workings days, he absented for 67 days and for the year 1978 with 244 working days, the second respondent absented himself for 159 days. During the year 1976 out of the total 276 days, he absented for 111 days, during 1977 of the 244 workings days, he absented for 67 days and for the year 1978 with 244 working days, the second respondent absented himself for 159 days. Since, it became difficult for the management to rely upon the second respondent and as the second respondent failed to improve his attendance despite several warnings, the management terminated his services by notice dated January 9, 1979 with one month salary, in lieu of the notice period. 5. Aggrieved by such order of termination the second respondent raised the industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the first respondent and the dispute was numbered as I.D. 3 82/1979. The workman examined himself as WW1 and marked 28 documents, the Management-examined M.W.1 & 2 and had marked 26 documents. The Labour Court after adjudicating the matter on merits and after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the continued absence of the second respondent has been proved and the management further held that the management was justified in terminating the services of the second respondent workman. 6. Thus, it is to be seen that the order of termination passed by the management was confirmed by the Labour Court. After having rendered such findings, the Labour Court directed the petitioner should be paid back wages and other attendant benefits from the date of his termination till the date of the award. This direction according to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court Kumaresan N. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another, (2001) 2 LLJ 369 , in support of his contentions. 7. I have, carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The short question to be decided in the present matter is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in issuing the direction for payment of back wages and other attendant benefits from the date of termination till the date of award and whether by invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, the Labour Court is justified in granting such a relief. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this issue has been settled by the decision of this Court in the case of N. Kumaresan v. Presiding officer, Labour Court and Anr. (supra) wherein this Court was considering nearly an identical issue and it was held as follows: 8. The next question that remains to be considered is as to whether the first respondent was justified in granting the relief of payment of ex gratia of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner. It is too well settled that while exercising the power u/s 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, first and foremost, the first respondent should give a finding as to whether the non-employment was not justified so as to invoke the said power available u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. When once the first respondent comes to a conclusion that the non-employment was justified, there is absolutely no scope for the first respondent to deal with the other question as to whether the punishment is disproportionate or not. In other words, in cases where the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the non-employment was not justified, there is every scope for interfering with the punishment by invoking Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act. But when once the first respondent came to the conclusion that the non-employment of the petitioner workman was justified, there is no jurisdiction for the first respondent to move forward and consider the question about the adequacy of the punishment imposed. Such being the legal position, the award of the first respondent-Labour Court granting relief of a sum of Rs. 25,000 by way of ex gratia is beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, the said part of the award is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the above decision, it is clear that after the Labour Court having held that the order of termination is justified, had no jurisdiction to grant the relief of back wages and other attendant benefits. Hence, the direction issued by the Labour Court has to be held as wholly without jurisdiction. That apart, according to the management the branch, where the second respondent was working was closed down during May 1981. Hence, the question of paying wages beyond the said period also does not arise. Hence, the direction issued by the Labour Court has to be held as wholly without jurisdiction. That apart, according to the management the branch, where the second respondent was working was closed down during May 1981. Hence, the question of paying wages beyond the said period also does not arise. That apart, even if the second respondent where to be in the employment of the petitioner, he would have attained the age of superannuation during 1995 and the question of paying salary till the date of the award, which is April 22, 1999, much beyond the date of superannuation, does not arise. 10. Therefore, I hold that the award of the Labour Court insofar as it relates to payment of back wages and other attendant benefits to the second respondent from the date of termination till the date of award, is illegal and accordingly the same is set aside and in all other respects the award of the Labour Court stands confirmed. Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated. No costs. 11. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that pursuant to an interim order dated September 2, 2003 in W.M.P. No. 21847/99, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/- to the credit of I.D. No. 382/1999 on the file of the first respondent, in view of the order passed allowing the present writ petition to the extent indicated, the petitioner management shall be entitled to withdraw the deposited amount together with accrued interest. The Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly disposed off. No costs.