JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned award dated 08.01.2014 made in I.D.No.219 of 2020 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all backwages and other emoluments forthwith.) 1. The Award dated 08.01.2014 passed in I.D.No.219 of 2010 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Writer in the Canteen of the first respondent Sugar Mill. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage employee on 14.05.996. The petitioner states that he was discharging his duties continuously. However, he was terminated from service on account of the lay-off and non-availability of work in the canteen during the relevant point of time. 3. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.219 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Salem. The Labour Court adjudicated the issues between the parties and ordered for re-appointment of the petitioner into service without back wages. It is not in dispute between the parties that there was a lay-off during the relevant point of time. Thus, the respondent was not in a position to provide employment to the labourers/daily wage employees. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent made a submission that the canteen, though situated inside the premises of the first respondent Sugar Mill, is not being administered by the Sugar Mill. The canteen is managed by a separate contractor on lease basis and therefore, the first respondent is not the administrator of the canteen. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that similar employees, who were working in the canteen, were absorbed in the Sugar Mill on earlier occasions and such a benefit was not extended to the petitioner. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute was raised for re-appointment of the petitioner into service and for back wages. Thus, this Court cannot go into the issue regarding permanent absorption of the petitioner in the services of the Sugar Mill. 7. As far as the Award of the Labour Court is concerned, it is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was reinstated into service and now, employment is provided to the petitioner by the respondent. Thus, this Court cannot go into the issue regarding permanent absorption of the petitioner in the services of the Sugar Mill. 7. As far as the Award of the Labour Court is concerned, it is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was reinstated into service and now, employment is provided to the petitioner by the respondent. 8. As far as the back wages are concerned, this Court is of an opinion that the finding of the Labour Court is in consonance with the principle of "No Work No Pay" and it was a lay-off and admittedly, the petitioner has not worked during the relevant point of time. 9. As far as the re-appointment is concerned, the petitioner is now being engaged by the respondent and therefore, the said grievance is also redressed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the case of the petitioner is to be considered for absorption in the Sugar Mill. The said issue has not been adjudicated by the Labour Court and no finding has been given. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents for any such relief. 11. As far as the impugned Award is concerned, the petitioner was re-appointed and even now he is continuing in his job and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award. 12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.