Judgment 1. The petitioner was employed as a driver under the first respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Madurai Division V) Limited, Virudhunagar. 2. On 10.04.1999, he drove the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-59-N-0599, belonging to the first respondent. It met with an accident killing a pedestrian. In respect of the said incident, alleging that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner, a charge-memorandum was issued. The petitioner denied the same. A domestic enquiry was therefore ordered to go into the charges, framed under charge-memo dated 07.05.1999. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. Finally, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges stood proved. Based on the same, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the first respondent by order dated 27.04.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.60 of 2005. The Labour Court passed an award on 18.06.2009, wherein, the Labour Court held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer that charges stood proved is not correct. The Labour Court, further, therefore, held that the dismissal of the petitioner from service is not correct. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service. But turning to the question of backwages, the Labour Court held that there were chances for the petitioner to have been employed gainfully elsewhere, during the interregnum period and therefore, he is not entitled for backwages. But the Labour Court has not given a finding about the other attendant benefits. 3. Subsequent to the above, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Limited has been bifurcated and the Tirunelveli Division has come into being. Now, the petitioner is reinstated in service, pursuant to the award of the Labour Court and he is working under the third respondent. Now, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition, challenging the said award to the extent, it is silent about the attendant benefits. The respondent Management has not filed any writ petition against the award of the Labour Court. That is why the writ petition is before me for final disposal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4 and I have perused the records carefully. 5. That is why the writ petition is before me for final disposal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4 and I have perused the records carefully. 5. Admittedly, the Labour Court has found that the charges had not been proved and only on that basis, the Labour Court directed the respondent Management to reinstate the petitioner into service. As against the said award, no appeal was preferred by the Management and that has become final. The petitioner challenges only denial of backwages and silence of the award in respect of attendant benefits. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner gives up the challenge in respect of the backwages. The said statement is recorded. Accordingly, I am inclined to confirm the award, wherein, the Labour Court has denied backwages to the petitioner. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the silence on the part of the Labour Court to issue a positive direction for all the attendant benefits is illegal. Therefore, he would pray for modification of the award in respect of that aspect. 7. But the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently oppose this writ petition. According to them, the Labour Court has taken into account all the relevant facts including the fact that the petitioner may be worked elsewhere during the interregnum period. That is why the Labour Court has not stated anything with regard to attendant benefits. 8. I have considered the above submissions. 9. It is not the case as if the Labour Court had denied the attendant benefits. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the award of the Labour Court is silent about the attendant benefits and therefore it has become necessary for this Court to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled for all the other attendant benefits, on his reinstatement. In my considered opinion, this question is to be necessarily answered in the affirmative. The reason is very simple. It is not a case, where the Labour Court had found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and turning to the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal. In my considered opinion, this question is to be necessarily answered in the affirmative. The reason is very simple. It is not a case, where the Labour Court had found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges and turning to the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal. On the contrary, here is the case, where the Labour Court has given a positive finding that the charges have not been proved. This finding is not in favour of the respondent Management. Then, it is axiomatic that the petitioner is entitled to other consequential attendant benefits. But at the same time, I have to say that the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of backwages. But his past salary shall be calculated for the purpose of fixing the future salary and for all the other benefits like promotion, pension if any etc. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the following effect: (i) The award of the Labour Court reinstating the petitioner in service and denying backwages is confirmed. (ii) The award of the Labour Court is modified, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to give the attendant benefits to the petitioner, on his reinstatement in service, such as increment, promotion, pension etc.,. But it is further directed that the past salary including increment shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of fixing the future salary and the petitioner shall not be entitled for arrears of backwages. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2008 is closed.