Judgment :- The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank at Cerambadi in Nilgiris District. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court in calling for the records of the 1st respondent in its Award in I.D.No.336 of 2001 dated 23.03.2005, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court cancelled the transfer given to the workman by name J.Vinu and also directed his reinstatement as a Clerk with Service continuity and backwages and all other attendant benefits. 3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 28.10.2005. In the stay application, notice was ordered. On such notice, the 2nd respondent union has filed a counter affidavit dated 31.3.2006. This Court by an interim order dated 11.9.2006 recorded the undertaking given by the petitioner Bank that they are prepared to employ the concerned workman from the date he reports before the petitioner and the remaining portion of the award relating to backwages can be stayed. Therefore, this Court recording the said undertaking granted stay only in respect of backwages and other terminal benefits, but on the condition that the petitioner bank employes the said workman. 4. In view of this order, the 2nd respondent union withdrew the application seeking for permission to pay backwages amount to sum of Rs.2,85,684/-and that application was withdrawn as withdrawn. Subsequently, this Court by an order dated 3.7.2008 held that the workman was entitled to be paid the daily wages at the rate of Rs.75/- per day till the conclusion of the Writ Petition. 5. The present case involving the said workman Vinu has a checkered history. The petitioner Cooperative Bank and their workmen signed a settlement under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 15.3.1994 granting revision of scales of pay for various posts. On 31.8.1996, the workman, who is originally employed in the main Headquarters was transferred to fair price shop at Sorambadi on daily wages at the rate of Rs.25/- per day by an order dated 31.8.1996. The said workman moved this Court with W.P.No.17460 of 1996 challenging the order of transfer. This Court held that such a Writ Petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact the transfer is forming part of the service conditions of the Cooperative Bank and also that the Writ Petition will not lie against the order of the Cooperative Bank. 6. This Court held that such a Writ Petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact the transfer is forming part of the service conditions of the Cooperative Bank and also that the Writ Petition will not lie against the order of the Cooperative Bank. 6. Subsequently, the said workman moved the Labour Court with a Claim Petition under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming wages in terms of 12(3) settlement signed between the management and the workmen. The said Claim Statement was taken on file as C.P.No.149 of 1997. After notice to the Cooperative Bank, the Labour Court, Coimbatore computed the amount payable to the workmen from 1.7.1992 to 31.8.1996 to the extent of Rs.67,148/-being the difference of the amount actually payable to the workman and the amount actually paid to the workman, by order dated 10.1.2000. It is also said that the said amount has been paid to the workman by Demand Draft dated 2.8.2000. 7. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent Trade Union raised a dispute as to whether the workman is entitled to get restoration to service in the post of Clerk with effect from 31.8.1996, namely the date on which he was transferred. The said dispute after failure of conciliation was referred for adjudication by the State Government by G.O.(D) No.339, Labour and Employment Department dated 27.4.2001. On receipt of the said reference order, the 1st respondent took up the dispute as I.D.No.336 of 2001 and issued notice to the petitioner Cooperative Bank. The 2nd respondent trade union filed a claim statement dated 16.11.2001. In that claim statement, there is no reference to the workman moving this Court as against the transfer order. The ground raised by the Union before the Labour Court was that the transfer order dated 31.8.1996 was a punishment transfer and after the transfer of the workman, certain other persons were engaged on the basis of promotion. Therefore, the workman was entitled to be transferred to service in the post of Clerk at the Headquarters. But, during the period of industrial dispute, namely from 1.9.1996 till the end of the award, the workman Vinu never reported for duty either in the fair price shop or in the Headquarters and remained totally absent. 8. The management filed a counter statement dated 30.12.2001. But, during the period of industrial dispute, namely from 1.9.1996 till the end of the award, the workman Vinu never reported for duty either in the fair price shop or in the Headquarters and remained totally absent. 8. The management filed a counter statement dated 30.12.2001. It was also stated that pursuant to the settlement, the workman was given salary due to Junior Clerk, but he never worked as Junior Clerk. Unfortunately, in the counter statement, they did not bring to the notice of the court the facts that the workman already came directly before this Court and the same was negatived and while negativing his claim, this Court incidentally observed that the transfer cannot be challenged. For the reasons best known, the Cooperative Bank remained ex-parte before the Labour Court. On the side of the trade union, the workman was examined as W.W.1 and also filed 17 documents as Ex.W.1 to W.17. It is also not stated in the affidavit as to why they did not place all these materials before the Labour Court. The Labour Court proceeded to determine the issue ex-parte. 9. The Labour Court on the basis of these materials came to the conclusion that the transfer order issued to the workman was not legal and proper and therefore the workman was entitled to be restored to the post of Clerk with service continuity and backwages. There is nowhere in the course of the award that there is any reference to the workman not being worked in the transferred post. Having lost his challenge to the transfer before this Court, notwithstanding the fact that the workman was not in service from 1.9.1996 to 23.3.2005, the Labour Court granted not only the benefit of reinstatement but also backwages and service continuity. It is this award, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 10. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that because there was a change in the post of Special Officer, there was a communication gap between the Cooperative Bank and the counsel. Therefore, they were not able to bring to the notice the earlier order passed in the Writ Petition filed by the workman. He also submitted that though the management was absent, the facts cannot be hidden from the Labour Court and no one can snatch the award without disclosing the full facts before the Labour Court. Therefore, they were not able to bring to the notice the earlier order passed in the Writ Petition filed by the workman. He also submitted that though the management was absent, the facts cannot be hidden from the Labour Court and no one can snatch the award without disclosing the full facts before the Labour Court. He also submitted that the workman was only paid daily wages at the time of his transfer to the fair price shop and only because of the order made in the claim statement, the amount was paid to him. 11. Though in the present case, it is an ex-parte award and also that the management did not file any application to set aside the ex-parte award, on the premise that it was a reasoned award. This Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the management that they have no adequate alternative remedy. But, however since the matter has been kept pending for the last five years, it is unnecessary to send the matter back to the Labour Court. It is suffice to state that even in an ex-parte award, if the reasons are materially wrong and necessary inputs have not made available to the Labour Court, this Court can correct such an error crept in the award of the Labour Court. When once he challenged the transfer order before this Court and failed in the Writ Petition, thereafter he cannot set up the trade union to raise an industrial dispute on identical issue and it also not informed to the court about the continued absence of the said workman. In view of this fact, this Court is obliged to interfere with the impugned award. 12. But, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner Cooperative Bank stated that they have no intention to remove the worker, who has been appointed pursuant to the undertaking given before this Court and they are also willing to pay him the salary attached to the post, in case the liability of backwages is not thrashed upon them. Mr.P.Anbarasan, learned counsel for the trade union is unable to state anything on the said issue. But, however, even assuming that the award ordering reinstatement is valid on either grounds, the question of grant of backwages will not arise, since the worker has never worked despite there being no impediment for him to work during the said period. Mr.P.Anbarasan, learned counsel for the trade union is unable to state anything on the said issue. But, however, even assuming that the award ordering reinstatement is valid on either grounds, the question of grant of backwages will not arise, since the worker has never worked despite there being no impediment for him to work during the said period. This is not a dispute relating to non-employment, but one of restoration to service in the Headquarters in the post of Clerk. Nothing prevented the workman from doing the work as a Packer in the fair price shop or getting an interim appropriate award before the Labour Court as to where he should be posted. Except giving evidence in this case, the workman did not disclose the true facts before the Labour Court. 13. Under the circumstances, while retaining the undertaking given by the management to continue to work in the service, this court set aside the award relating to backwages and other attendant benefits. The Writ Petition stands allowed. However, it is made clear that the workman will be continued in service and will also be paid wages due to the post held by him from the date of his restoration to service. In other respects, he will not be entitled to any relief. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.