Order: 1. W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007 is filed by the Management challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.191 of 2001 dated 28.02.2003, whereby the first respondents was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. 2. W.P(MD)No.2073 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner, who is the first respondent in other writ petition, seeking for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 20.09.2006. 3. As both the writ petitions are arising out of same cause of action and common facts, they are taken up together and dealt with by this common order. 4. The common facts in both the cases are as follows:- The first respondent in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007, who is the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.2073 of 2008 is the employee. The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007 and the second respondent in W.P(MD)No.2073 of 2008 is the employer. For the sake of convenience, the parties are called as employer and employee hereafter. The employee was appointed on 01.06.1996 on daily wages basis. As he absented himself unauthorisedly, he was removed from service by following due procedure against which, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.191 of 2000 seeking for reinstatement with back wages. On receipt of the notice from the Labour Court, the employer entrusted the matter to a counsel by name Mr. Marimuthu, to contest the matter. The said counsel fell ill and died out of such illness. Therefore, the employer was not properly communicated of the hearing dates and the stage of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. Only on 06.11.2006, the employer received a communication from the Labour Officer, Ramnad and consequently, came to understand that the employee filed writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.5603 of 2006 and got it dismissed on 11.07.2006. Only at that stage, the employer came to know about the ex parte award passed on 28.02.2003 in I.D.No.191 of 2001. Therefore, challenging the said award passed by the Labour Court, the writ petition in W.P(MD) No.3730 of 2007 is filed immediately. Only at that stage, the employer came to know about the ex parte award passed on 28.02.2003 in I.D.No.191 of 2001. Therefore, challenging the said award passed by the Labour Court, the writ petition in W.P(MD) No.3730 of 2007 is filed immediately. The employee after waiting for a long time for reinstatement and having not been reinstated as ordered by the Labour Court, approached this Court in W.P(MD)No.5603 of 2006 seeking for a direction to the employer to reinstate him with back wages. In the said writ petition, the learned Judge passed an order on 11.07.2006 and directed the employee to approach the Labour Officer to take action as per Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act for implementation of the award. Accordingly, the employee filed a petition under Section 29 of the said Act and as the same was not disposed of, the other writ petition in W.P(MD)No.2073 of 2008 came to be filed before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents in both the matters. 6. Admittedly, the employee, namely, the first respondent in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007 was terminated from service and against which, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.191 of 2001. It is seen from the award passed by the Labour Court dated 28.02.2003 that the employer remained ex parte and after holding that the claim made by the petitioner as proved, the Labour Court allowed I.D. and ordered reinstatement of the employee with full back wages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Further perusal of the said award shows that copy of the said award was marked to the employer, namely, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007. Further, the said award was also duly gazetted by the Government through his proceedings dated 06.05.2003 and even such proceedings were also marked to the employer, as could be seen from the said proceedings. When those two proceedings made as early as in the year 2003 were marked to the employer municipality, there is absolutely no averment contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007 to say that they did not receive the order copy. When those two proceedings made as early as in the year 2003 were marked to the employer municipality, there is absolutely no averment contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007 to say that they did not receive the order copy. On the other hand, it is only stated that the municipality received the communication of the Labour Officer only on 06.11.2006 and thereafter, they have chosen to file the writ petition in the year 2007. I am unable to accept the contention raised by the employer municipality. When the award of the Labour Court as well as gazetted publication of the award were duly marked and sent to the municipality, the averments made in the affidavit about the knowledge of the said award only in the year of 2006 are totally unacceptable. Moreover, the fact remains that when the award was passed as an ex parte award as early as in the year 2003, they have not chosen to file any set aside petition before the Labour Court immediately. It is totally unbelievable that the employer being a municipality and holding responsible position would remain quite without even ascertaining the status of the case pending before the Labour Court for more than 5 years. In my considered view, the averments made in the affidavit filed by the municipality appears to be only an after thought and not supported by material evidence. As the award itself came to be passed in the year 2003, filing of the writ petition only in the year 2007 is undoubtedly cannot be entertained on the ground of delay and laches. Though the award came to be passed as ex parte one still in the absence of any set aside application filed before the Labour Court and in view of the fact that the employer had also approached this Court after a period of nearly four years from the date of the award, I am unable to accept the contention raised by the employer. 7. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the employer in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007 is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Consequently, the petitioner/ employer is directed to reinstate the first respondent/employee into service without any back wages as he has not worked during period, in which, he was out of employment. However, he is entitled to have the continuity of service. 8. Consequently, the petitioner/ employer is directed to reinstate the first respondent/employee into service without any back wages as he has not worked during period, in which, he was out of employment. However, he is entitled to have the continuity of service. 8. In view of the order made in W.P(MD)No.3730 of 2007, no further order is required in W.P(MD)No.2073 of 2008. Accordingly, the said writ petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.