Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment, dated 14.10.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3844 of 1997. The 1st respondent filed I.D.No.264 of 1988 against the appellants before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court (for short ‘the Labour Court’), challenging an order, dated 29.09.1986. He stated that the order was served upon him about 14 months after the date and that neither any notice nor any charge sheet was issued, much less he was subjected to any departmental enquiry. Before the Labour Court, the appellants remained ex parte. A Nil award, dated 22.05.1989 was passed taking the view that the 1st respondent is not the one, whose services were terminated through the order, dated 29.09.1986. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.16768 of 1989 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed setting aside the award. It was found that the name of the 1st respondent is C.V.Vishwanatham, whereas the order of termination was passed against one M.Vishwanathan. On that basis, the learned Single Judge directed that I.D.No.264 of 1988 be restored and be disposed of afresh. Challenging the order in W.P.No.16768 of 1989, the appellants filed W.A.No.67 of 1995. The writ appeal was disposed of almost confirming the order of the learned Single Judge but directing the Labour Court to enquire into the identity of the 1st respondent. After remand, the Labour Court passed an award dated 06.03.1995 holding that the 1st respondent was not subjected to any disciplinary proceedings but his services were terminated in the disciplinary proceedings. There again, the appellants remained ex parte. Challenging the said award, the appellants filed W.P.No.3844 of 1997. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition upholding the award. Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. It is the second round of litigation between the parties. It all started with the submission of a complaint by one customer, who visited the Annapurna Peoples Canteen maintained by the appellant at Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad in the year 1985. A complaint was submitted on 10.08.1985, by one Mr.Gopal Rao and others stating that certain irregularities have taken place and they named one Mr.M.Viswanathan, employee as the person responsible. The Assistant Manager visited the canteen and that was followed by service of a charge sheet on M.Vishwanathan. A complaint was submitted on 10.08.1985, by one Mr.Gopal Rao and others stating that certain irregularities have taken place and they named one Mr.M.Viswanathan, employee as the person responsible. The Assistant Manager visited the canteen and that was followed by service of a charge sheet on M.Vishwanathan. Domestic enquiry is said to have been held and ultimately order of termination was passed on M.Viswanathan on 19.12.1987. It was only in the year 1998, that the order is said to have been served upon C.V.Viswanatham, 1st respondent herein. He filed I.D.No.264 of 1988 before the Labour Court. His principal contention was that he did not resort to any acts of misconduct nor any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Therefore, heavy burden rested upon the appellants to prove the identity of the person by placing necessary material before the Labour Court. However, they have chosen to remain ex parte. The Labour Court took the view that when the order of termination is against M.Vishwanathan, 1st respondent could not have any plausible objection. However, since the effect of the order of termination being felt by him, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.167868 of 1989. Learned Single Judge took the view that the Labour Court ought to have decided the identity of the person, whose services were terminated through order, dated 29.09.1986. There was absolutely no necessity for the appellants to carry the matter further. However, W.A.No.67 of 1995 was filed and the order of the learned Single Judge was virtually upheld. Atleast when the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, the appellants ought to have ensured that the identity of the person is established. Though now and then they appeared through an Advocate, it was represented that the record pertaining to the enquiry is misplaced. The Labour Court granted quite large number of opportunities and when the appellants were consistent in not attending, it proceeded to decide the matter on merits. A specific finding was recorded to the effect that the 1st respondent is C.V.Vishwanathan and that he is a different person, from the one mentioned in the order of termination. He is the one who worked as a bill writer in the canteen at Mozamjahi Market. On finding that no proceedings whatever were initiated against him, nor any record was placed before it, the Labour Court passed the award and granted the relief. He is the one who worked as a bill writer in the canteen at Mozamjahi Market. On finding that no proceedings whatever were initiated against him, nor any record was placed before it, the Labour Court passed the award and granted the relief. The learned Single Judge has upheld the award, when challenged by the appellants herein. Even before us, it is not stated or established as to how the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from any illegality or infirmity. If there was any lapse, the appellants have to blame themselves squarely. The matter was languishing for the past quarter century in one form or the other. The 1st respondent is put outside the employment and it is stated that even the wages under Section 17-B of the Act have been stopped. If the appellants had the luxury of paying the backwages of an employee without extracting whatever, nobody can help it. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal. In case, the 1st respondent did not cross the age of superannuation, he shall be reinstated forthwith and backwages shall be paid to him within two months. If on the other hand, he has attained the age of superannuation, backwages as well as attendant benefits shall be extended to him within three months. In the process of calculation of backwages, if any amount is paid under Section 17-B of the Act, the same shall be taken into account. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.