ORDER 1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner is owned by the Tamil Nadu Government. The petitioner was established for the benefit of Ex-servicemen. The petitioner is awarded contract by various companies for supply of labour. In turn, the petitioner deploys ex-servicemen or the dependents of the ex-servicemen to the required places. 2. The State Express Transport Corporation also awarded contract to the writ petitioner for supply of labour. The petitioner deputed the third respondent, who is the dependent of an ex-serviceman to the State Express Transport Corporation on 27.3.1998 to work as security guard so as to do the job of a ticket issuer. Immediately, the State Express Transport Corporation made certain complaints. 3. The second respondent also awarded contract to the writ petitioner for supply of security guards. Hence, the petitioner deputed the third respondent to the second respondent as a security guard. The third respondent joined the second respondent establishment on 1.4.1998. However, the second respondent sent a letter dated 24.8.2000 against the third respondent and one Baskaran complaining that they failed to bring to the notice of the second respondent about the dumping of two loads of earth mixed debris by an external agency inside the premises. The second respondent sought replacement of the third respondent and also one Mr. Baskaran. In these circumstances, the case of the writ petitioner is that the third respondent was directed to report to the writ petitioner so as to take up employment with some other agency. According to the petitioner the contract with the second respondent also came to an end and thereafter, no fresh contract was awarded by the second respondent. In the said circumstances, according to the petitioner, the third respondent did not report for duty to the writ petitioner. On the other hand, the third respondent took up the matter before the conciliation machinery of the Labour Department of the Tamil Nadu Government complaining about his non-employment. The conciliatory efforts also failed. 4. Thereafter, the third respondent took up the matter before the first respondent LabourCourt inI.D. No. 280 of 2001 by filing claim statement under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petitioner did not appear before the first respondent Labour Court. According to the petitioner, the officials concerned misplaced the summon and did not follow up the matter. Hence, the writ petitioner, remained ex parte. The writ petitioner did not appear before the first respondent Labour Court. According to the petitioner, the officials concerned misplaced the summon and did not follow up the matter. Hence, the writ petitioner, remained ex parte. Though the second respondent appeared and filed counter, they also did not appear on 6.3.2007, the date on which the ex parte award was passed. The first respondent passed the ex parte award dismissing the I.D. as against the second respondent and directing the writ petitioner to reinstate the third respondent herein with back wages, continuity of service and other benefits. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 491 of 2010 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award passed in I.D. No. 280 of 2001. The said application was also dismissed by the first respondent by an order dated 13.7.2012. 6. The petitioner has filed W.P. No. 27240 of 2012 to quash the award dated 6.3.2007 made in I.D. No. 280 of 2001 of the first respondent. The petitioner has also filed W.P. No. 27241 of 2012 to quash the order dated 13.7.2012 passed in I.A. No. 491 of 2010. Though notice was served on the second respondent , they have not chosen to appear before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 8. The impugned award is extracted hereunder: “This dispute has been raised by the petitioner under Section 2(A)(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 seeking reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits. 2. The 1strespondent did not file counter statement. 3. The 2ndrespondent filed counter statement. 4. Today, petition to amend the prayer filed and allowed. Amendment carried out. Already respondents called absent and set ex parte. Perused the evidence of W.W.1 and Exhibits W-1 to W-6. Claim proved against the first respondent. Hence, award is passed directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits and the Industrial Dispute is dismissed as against the second respondent. No costs.” In the said order, there is no discussion whatsoever made by the first respondent labour Court as to the facts of the case and as to reasons for ordering the reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. No costs.” In the said order, there is no discussion whatsoever made by the first respondent labour Court as to the facts of the case and as to reasons for ordering the reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. The first respondent failed to apply his mind while passing the award. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Presiding Officer II Additional Labour Court and Another 1997-I-LLJ-923 and also the learned single Judge of this Court in the judgment in Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Others 2000 (3) L.L.N. 1025 have categorically held that the Labour Court is bound to give reasons while passing an award. In this case, the impugned award is contrary to the aforesaid decisions of this Court. Hence, I have no hesitation to quash the award. 10. Accordingly, the impugned award is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent Labour Court to decide the same afresh after hearing both the parties. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the industrial dispute in I.D. No. 280 of 2001 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the writ petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) as cost for both the writ petitions to the third respondent. The writ petition in W.P. No. 27240 of 2012 is allowed on the above terms. Consequently the connected, M.P is closed. 11. In view of the order passed in W.P. No. 27240 of 2012 allowing the writ petition, the order impugned in the writ petition in W.P. No. 27241 of 2012 is also set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. 12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has produced a letter dated 30.11.2012 that was sent to the third respondent offering employment as security guard on contract basis at the office of the R.T.O, Chengalpattu for a monthly remuneration of Rs. 8906/-. The said letter is placed before this Court. The third respondent is directed to collect the posting order in the office of the writ petitioner at the earliest. Petition allowed.