Judgment Heard both sides. W.P.Nos.34894 and 34895 of 2005 and W.P.Nos.17004 and 17005 of 2009 were filed by one and the same person. W.P.No.6984 of 2006 was filed by the State owned Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. represented by its Managing Director. 2. In W.P.No.34894 of 2005, the petitioner/workman has sought for a direction to respondents to provide alternative employment with the scale of pay of a fresh entrant permanent driver and wagers and other attendant benefits from the date of the award in I.D.No.644 of 2000, dated 15. 2003 passed by the Labour Court, Salem. 3. In W.P.No.34895 of 2005, the petitioner/workman challenges the award in I.D.No.644 of 2000, dated 15. 2003 so far as depriving the petitioner of his backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits and for consequential direction to pay backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. These two writ petitions were admitted on 210. 2005. .4. Subsequent to the filing of those writ petitions, the Management of the Transport Corporation has filed W.P.No.6984 of 2006, seeking to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court, Salem in C.P.No.2 of 2004, dated 22. 2005. That writ petition was admitted on 13. 2006. Pending the writ petition, this court granted an interim stay of operation of the order on condition that the Management deposits a sum of Rs.8920/-within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. 5. During the pendency of those three writ petitions, the very same petitioner/workman has come forward to file other two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.17004 and 17005 of 2009. In the first writ petition, once again, the very same petitioner had challenged the very same award in I.D.No.644 of 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Salem, dated 15. 2003. In W.P.No.17005 of 2009, he had sought for a direction to pay wages and other benefits payable for a permanent driver from the date of the award and to provide a suitable alternative job to the petitioner as he became unfit for the post of driver with pay protection. 6. It is shocking to note that the workman did not even mention in his affidavit about the filing of the first two writ petitions for identical relief in W.P.Nos.34894 and 34895 of 2005. It must be noted that the counsel for the petitioner in both cases is the very same counsel. 6. It is shocking to note that the workman did not even mention in his affidavit about the filing of the first two writ petitions for identical relief in W.P.Nos.34894 and 34895 of 2005. It must be noted that the counsel for the petitioner in both cases is the very same counsel. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they filed two writ petitions for the very same relief and that too, after a period of four years from the filing of the earlier writ petitions. In W.P.Nos.17004 and 17005 of 2009, only notice of motion was ordered. 7. When those writ petitions came up for hearing, this Court directed the earlier writ petitions to be posted along with this. Accordingly, the earlier writ petitions came to be posted. Only then it was found out that the writ petitions filed in 2005 are identical to writ petitions filed in 2009. Except the counsel had expressed his regret, no other explanation is forthcoming. It is rather unfortunate that the workman has been made to file two new writ petitions with the very same prayer. The counsel should have advised him properly. But the very same counsel also filed similar writ petitions subsequently. 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner was declared physically unfit for doing his work and he has been fighting his case for the last four years, this court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petitions for suppression of facts. But, in view of the fact that earlier writ petitions are pending for the same relief, W.P.Nos.17004 and 17005 of 2009 are unnecessary and they are liable to be dismissed. .9. In W.P.Nos.34894 and 34895 of 2005, the challenge is to the award in I.D.No.644 of 2000, dated 15. 2003. In I.D.No.644 of 2000, the Labour Court had set aside the dismissal order, dated 27. 2000 marked as Ex.M.13 and directed the petitioners reinstatement without service continuity and without backwages and he was directed to be reinstated in two months. The Transport Corporation did not challenge the said Award. Thus, the award became final as far as the management is concerned. It is only the workman who has come forward to challenge the same. 10. 2000 marked as Ex.M.13 and directed the petitioners reinstatement without service continuity and without backwages and he was directed to be reinstated in two months. The Transport Corporation did not challenge the said Award. Thus, the award became final as far as the management is concerned. It is only the workman who has come forward to challenge the same. 10. In the meanwhile, the workman had filed a claim petition in C.P.No.2 of 2004 before the Labour Court, claiming wages for the period in which he was not given employment pursuant to the award. 11. Though a counter statement was filed, the Transport Corporation did not put up any serious challenge to the said claim petition. The Labour Court by a final order, dated 22. 2005 directed the amount of Rs.8920/-to be paid to workman with interest at the rate of 6% as well as costs of Rs.100/-also to be paid to him. Since the order in the claim petition is based upon the award and the award is not under challenge, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed by the Transport Corporation, i.e. W.P.No.6984 of 2006 and it is liable to be dismissed. Since by the interim order, already that amount has been directed to be deposited, it is open to the workman to withdraw the amount from the Labour court and also to claim interest and litigation expenses directly from the management. 12. Even before the dismissal order which is covered by the subject matter of industrial dispute, the petitioner was dismissed on an earlier occasion on 14. 1996 for the misconduct of unauthorised absence. Thereafter, he was taken into service. In the present case also, the workman was also accused of with similar misconduct. The Labour Court, by the exercise of its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act directed his reinstatement without backwges and without service continuity. Subsequent to the Award, the workman was offered to be reinstated only on a daily wage basis on 21. 2004. Hence, the workman did not join duty. The workman sent a protest letter, dated 33. 2004 stating that he cannot be made as daily rated driver contrary to the Award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, he stated that unless he is appointed as a regular driver, he will not join duty. .13. 2004. Hence, the workman did not join duty. The workman sent a protest letter, dated 33. 2004 stating that he cannot be made as daily rated driver contrary to the Award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, he stated that unless he is appointed as a regular driver, he will not join duty. .13. The workman also stated that his physical condition is not conducive for doing duty .of driver as he had suffered a paralytic attack and his entire right side body has become mum and dis-functional. He has also lost his power of speech. He had submitted that as per the Labour Courts Award, he should have been given a regular duty as a driver not on daily rated worker. 14. Mr. Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments: 1. Kunal Singh Vs. Union of India and another (2003) 4 SCC 524 . 2. Management of Tamil Nadu, State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division-III) Ltd., Kancheepuram Vs. B. Gnanasekaran (2007) 5 MLJ 1 . 3. V. Palanishanmugavel and Others Vs. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Tirunelveli and Others (2007 (4) CTC 478). 4. Bhagwan Dass and another Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008) 1 SCC 579 . 5. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division II) Ltd., Kumbakonam Vs. Udayasuriyan (2008 (2) LLN 540). 6. G.Muthu Vs. Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Madurai) Ltd., Madurai (2007 I LLJ 9). 15. All these judgments are cited to show since the workman had disabled himself due to paralytic attack, he should be given an alternative employment. His disability will come under the purview of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. But by virtue of Section 47 of the said Act, the workman is entitled to be continued in service and also is entitled to get his last drawn pay protected. 16. Considering the rival submissions, the court is of the view that though the Labour Court found the workman was guilty of unauthorised absence, on granting relief the Labour Court deprived the workman of his backwages and continuity of services. But, it is not clear as to why the Labour Court had denied him service continuity, especially when the workman is suffering from certain ailments and his absence to that extent cannot be found fault with. But, it is not clear as to why the Labour Court had denied him service continuity, especially when the workman is suffering from certain ailments and his absence to that extent cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the impugned Award in I.D.No.644 of 2000 will stand modified to the extent that the workman is entitled to get reinstated with service continuity, but there will be no backwages. 17. Therefore, W.P.Nos.17004 and 17005 of 2009 will stand dismissed for the reasons as indicated above. W.P.No.6984 of 2006 also will stand dismissed, confirming the order passed in the claim petition. The workman is eligible to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the labour court. 18. The Transport Corporation did not reinstate the petitioner as per the Award of the Labour Court as a regular worker, but only offered him to work as daily rated worker. Their action is illegal. Therefore, the workman is entitled for backwages from the date of the Award till the date of his being given an alternative employment. There shall be a direction to the Transport Corporation to reinstate the workman in some other work in tune with his present physical condition after giving due protection to the pay on par with the wages of a Driver. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.34894 and 34895 of 2005 are disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.