Judgment :- (Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on from Labour Court Coimbatore in connection with Order passed in C.P.Nos.13/99, 407/98, 408/98 dated 17.11.1999, 17.12.1999 and quash the same.) Common Order: Challenge in these Writ Petitions are the Order passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.Nos.13/99, 407/98, 408/98, computing pension payable to the Respondents. 2. Since common points are involved in these Writ Petitions, all the Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common Order. 3. According to the Petitioner/Municipality, employees, Mandiri, Lakshmi and Velan were contingent employees from the date of commencement of their service. Their services are regularised with effect from 01.10.1973 as per the Government Memo No.115705/M/Special/73-4 dated 15.12.1973. For grant of pensionary benefits ten years of qualifying service from the date of regularization in the post is required as per the Rules. 4. But the said employees fell short of the requirement of ten years of qualifying service. Hence the said employees Mandiri, Lakshmi and Velan are not entitled for the pensionary benefits. As per G.O.Ms.No.1877 [Health and Family Welfare] dated 24.10.1979, the retirement age was increased to 60. Hence the said employees were reemployed and that period will not count for any benefit. 5. Earlier, the Respondent filed C.P.Nos.454/1992, 213/1991 and 214/1991 claiming pensionary benefits. In the said Claim Petitions Petitioner/Municipality has filed Counter Affidavit contending that Petition under Section 33C(2) of I.D.Act is not maintainable. The Labour Court has computed pension amount by Order dated 31.12.1992. As against the said Order, Petitioner/Municipality has filed Writ Petition before the High Court. By the Order dated 09.11.2001, the batch of Writ Petitions were allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court. 6. In these claim Petitions, C.P.Nos.13/1999, 407/1998 and 408/1998, the Petitioner/Municipality has filed counter resisting the Petitions claiming pensionary benefits. But when the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.12.1999, Counsel for the Petitioner/Municipality could not appear and hence, exparte Order was passed, allowing the Claim Petitions, by the impugned orders challenging which these Writ Petitions are filed. Petition Averments in W.P.No.2544/2001:- 7. Mandiri – mother of Respondents 1 to 4 retired from service on 30.06.1975. Half of her service from 01.01.1961 to 30.09.1973 comes to 6 years 4 months and 16 days. She has retired from service on 30.06.1975. Petition Averments in W.P.No.2544/2001:- 7. Mandiri – mother of Respondents 1 to 4 retired from service on 30.06.1975. Half of her service from 01.01.1961 to 30.09.1973 comes to 6 years 4 months and 16 days. She has retired from service on 30.06.1975. From 01.10.1973 to 30.06.1975, the period of service comes to 1 year 9 months. Service of Mandiri to be reckoned for pensionary benefit altogether comes to only 8 years and 1 month. As the mother of the Respondents 1 to 4 has not completed ten years of service, she is not eligible for pensionary benefits. Averments in W.P.No.2545/2001:- 8. The first Respondent’s husband Velan superannuated on 31.08.1975. Half of his service from 01.01.1961 to 30.09.1973 comes to 6 years 4 months and 16 days. Velan has retired from service on 31.08.1975 and from 01.10.1973 to 31.08.1975, the period of service comes to 1 year 11 months. Service of Velan to be reckoned for pensionary benefit altogether comes to only 8 years and 3 months and 16 days. As Velan has not completed 10 years of service, he is not eligible for pension. Averments in W.P.No.2546/2001:- 9. The first Respondent Lakshmi has superannuated on 30.06.1976. Half of his service from 01.01.1961 to 30.09.1973 comes to 6 years 4 months and 16 days. She has retired from service on 30.06.1976 and from 01.10.1973 to 30.06.1976, the period of service comes to 2 years 9 months. Service of the first Respondent to be reckoned for pensionary benefit altogether comes to only 9 years and 1 month. After the date of retirement, the first Respondent was allowed to work as Sanitary Worker on reemployment basis till 30.06.1981 and that period cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. 10. The impugned orders are assailed interalia on the following contentions:- (i) When the Writ Petition regarding the eligibility of the employees to pensionary benefits, was pending before the High Court, the Labour Court ought to have kept the matter pending disposal of the Writ Petition by the High Court. (ii) Even if there was no representation for the Petitioner/Municipality on 17.12.1999, the Labour Court ought to have gone into the merits of the claim and ought to have passed orders on the basis of the materials placed before it and ought not to have passed the exparte Order. 11. (ii) Even if there was no representation for the Petitioner/Municipality on 17.12.1999, the Labour Court ought to have gone into the merits of the claim and ought to have passed orders on the basis of the materials placed before it and ought not to have passed the exparte Order. 11. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, drawing the attention of the Court to the Order passed in the batch of Writ Petitions filed by the Sanitary Workers in W.P.Nos.3509 to 3513/1994 batch, [dated 09.11.2001] and the subsequent Order passed by the Labour Court, in C.P.No.213/1991, 214/ 1991 and 452/1992, has submitted that in the said Claim Petitions, when the Petitioner/Municipality has paid pension for one spell of time, the Petitioner/ Municipality is obligated to pay pension for the period claimed in these Claim Petitions also. 12. The subject matter of the dispute lies in a narrow compass. Earlier, in the batch of claim Petitions filed by the sanitary workers, the Labour Court denied pensionary benefits to the Sanitary workers on the ground that the retired sanitary workers who have not completed ten years of qualifying service are not eligible for pension under Tamil Nadu Non Pensionable Establishment Service Rules, 1941. For some other Employees, pension was computed. Both the Municipality and the sanitary workers filed batch of Writ Petitions. By Order dated 09.11.2001, elaborately considering the points raised by the Municipality and the employees, Justice P.Sathasivam has remitted back the matter to the Labour Court to consider the matter afresh regarding the eligibility to the pension benefits. 13. Regarding Sanitary Workers – Mandiri, Lakshmi and Velan, [C.P.Nos.213, 214/1991 and 454/1992], by the common Order dated 03.01.2003, the Labour Court has computed pension amount for a spell of period. That pension amount has been paid by the Municipality with interest. 14. These Writ Petitions arise out of award of the Labour Court computing pension for subsequent spell of time. For proper appreciation, we may usefully refer to the details regarding the earlier Claim Petitions and the spell of time for which pensionary benefits were paid and the present claim Petitions and the spell of time for which pensionary benefits is claimed, which is as follows:- When the Municipality has paid the pensionary benefits to the earlier spell, the Municipality cannot be heard to deny the eligibility of the pensionary benefits for the next spell. 15. 15. Eligibility to pensionary benefits has been considered by the Labour Court in its Award made in Claim Petitions C.P.Nos.213, 214/1991 and 454/1992 dated 03.01.2003. If really the Municipality is aggrieved over that finding, the Municipality has to agitate by taking appropriate steps challenging that Award. The eligibility to pensionary scheme or otherwise cannot be determined in these Writ Petitions, which is only consequential to the earlier proceedings. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the award made by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in C.P.Nos.13/99, 407/98, 408/98 are confirmed and these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.3436 to 3438/2001 and W.V.M.P.Nos. 16649, 16702 and 19875/2001 are closed.