ORDER : S. SUJATHA, J. 1. The employer is before this Court challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.72/2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. Shirish Krishna vehemently submits that the management has produced the documents i.e., copy of identity card and copy of temporary identify certificate generated by the computer marked as Ex s. M. 16 and M. 17 to establish their case that the workman had attained superannuation and his date of birth was 01.01.1953. Learned counsel submits that the labour Court erred in not appreciating these documents and without considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the management, proceeded to allow the dispute filed by the workman directing the management to reinstate the workman with 50% back wages and continuity of service with all other consequential benefits. It is apparent that the workman had attained superannuation and the order passed by the Labour Court could not be implemented. The management is ready and willing to pay all the benefits as directed by the Labour Court except reinstating the workman which is practically unworkable at this stage. 4. Learned counsel would further contend that the age of the workman is shown as 46 years in the claim petition and the same is reflected in the affidavit filed in the year 2011. As such, the age disclosed by the workman remains the same in the years 2009 and 2011, this discrepancy would indicate that the respondent has not approached the Labour Court with correct age and on this ground alone, the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the case of the workman. 5. On the other hand, Sri. V.S. Naik learned counsel appearing for the workman supporting the order passed by the Labour Court would contend that neither any pleadings nor issues are raised before the Labour Court on the issue of the workman attaining superannuation. However, this aspect was also considered by the Labour Court and a finding is given to the effect that the petitioner has failed to prove this contention that the workman has attained superannuation. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires to be negated and the award passed by the Labour Court has to be given effect to its full extent. 6. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires to be negated and the award passed by the Labour Court has to be given effect to its full extent. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is discerned that the counter statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court does not disclose this plea now raised in this writ petition that the workman had attained superannuation at the time of passing of the award by the Labour Court inasmuch as the award passed by the Labour Court is unworkable and cannot be implemented. It is only during the course of arguments such stance was taken by the management/petitioner and that was duly considered and addressed by the Labour Court in the light of the material evidence available on record and a conclusion is arrived at, that the petitioner has failed to prove that the workman had attained superannuation. -Secondly, it is also significant to note that the petitioner has not cross-examined the respondent on this point. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is some lapse on their part, due to some communication gap between the advocate and the petitioner's office with regard to the date, stage of the case pending before the Labour Court. This defence of the management is totally untenable. Thus, it is clear that no attempt was made by the petitioner to cross-examine on this issue, if the management was seriously disputing the age of the workman as contended in the claim petition and affidavits filed. Such exercise, having not been done by the petitioner, no fault could be found with the order of the labour Court for negating the contention of the petitioner on this aspect. It is suffice to say that the Labour Court has extensively considered the material evidence on record, analysed and has come to a conclusion that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages along with continuity of service and other consequential benefits which cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. 7. Writ Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. The workman is at liberty to withdraw the litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- deposited by the petitioner before this Court.