H.K. BELLAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPTD. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter comes up after notice of motion There is representation for both the respondents. The first respondent is being represented by the Special Government Pleader and the second respondent by Mr. Balasubramanian. This Writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.7132 of 1982. The appellant herein was the petitioner in the writ petitioner and the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition. Convenience suggests to us to refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioner was employed as a Clerk with/the second respondent. His services were terminated on 7.12.1973 on the ground that the petitioner lacked the qualifications for the post in which he was employed. The petitioner was agitating over his termination from services departmentally. On 6,2.1976 the second respondent reinstated the petitioner. The body of the said order reads as follows:

(2.) THOUGH reinstated, the petitioner was not accorded the service benefits, during the period when he was kept out of employment between 7.12.1973 and 11.2.1976 when actually he was reinstated. The petitioner was demanding settlement of the said service benefits. On 4.3.1977 the second respondent wrote to the petitioner as follows:

(3.) THE Labour Court, Coimbatore passed orders on 1.7.1980 in the computation petiton No.28 of 1980 dismissing it, and a perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court gives no room for ambiguity in our mind that the reason which weighed with the Labour Court in dismissing the computation petition was the lack of adjudication in a properly raised industrial dispute that the non -employment during the period in question, namely 7.12.1973 and 10.2.1976 was illegal. The relevant portion of the order of the Labour Court which shows what exactly ultimately weighed with it needs extraction as follows: