Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. As the issues involved both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. Since the facts are similar in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions, we are inclined to refer the facts in the Writ Appal. 3. The first respondent S. Arul Lingam is the petitioner in W.P.No.3369 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner). He was employed in Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop run by the second respondent, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operartive Societies, Kanniyakumari District, through the third respondent, Kalkulam Vilavancode Taluk Cooperative Marketing Society, Marthandam. He has completed 240 days of service as a daily rated wages employee. He was denied employment with effect from 35. 1998 without any prior notice or intimation. Hence he raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Nagercoil and since the conciliation ended in failure, the matter was taken up before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. By the Award dated 24. 2001, the Labour Court directed the second respondent be reinstated, the petitioner in service, without the continuity of service, back wages and other benefits which are not in dispute. Then the award became final, as the Society has not questioned the same further. 4. As the award was not implemented, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.19645 of 2001 seeking a direction to implement the said award. By an order dated 111. 2001, this Court directed the Joint Director of Co-operative Societies, Kanniyakumari District, to implement the award within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Order. 5. It appears that in obedience of the proceedings of the Special Officer of the Society dated 111. 2001 a communication was sent to the petitioner for compliance of the award. The Communication reads as follows: "Proceedings of the Special Officer, Kalkulam Vilavankode Taluks Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Marthandam Thiru. V.M. Babu Chandar, Special Officer Rc.No.12/2001 Date: 111. 2001 Sub: Re-employment of helpers-in kalkulam vilavankode Taluks Agricultural Producers co-operative Marketing Society Regarding. By the award of the labour court, Tirunelveli, dated 27.04.2001, we were directed to reemploy you without continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. Accordingly you are hereby reemployed with effect from 27.05.2001 i.e., the date when the award would have normally become enforceable. 2001 Sub: Re-employment of helpers-in kalkulam vilavankode Taluks Agricultural Producers co-operative Marketing Society Regarding. By the award of the labour court, Tirunelveli, dated 27.04.2001, we were directed to reemploy you without continuity of service, back wages and other benefits. Accordingly you are hereby reemployed with effect from 27.05.2001 i.e., the date when the award would have normally become enforceable. You will be paid wages for the period from 27.05.2001. As we are implementing the award you are advised to withdraw W.P.No.19645 of 2001." sd/-Special Officer, Kalkulam Vilavankode Taluks Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., No.Y.285, Marthandam. To Thiru C. Livingston Michael Raj, S/o Chinna Wilson, Bethelpuram Vandavilai Neyyoor Post. K.K. Dist." 6. However, by subsequent order dated 211. 2001 the petitioner was retrenched and the said communication reads as under: Registered Post with Ack due Proceedings of the Special Officer Kalkulam Vilavankode Taluks Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Marthandam Thiru. V.M. Babu Chandar, Special Officer Rc.No.12/2001 Date:211. 2001 Sub: Termination of helpers-in Kalkulam vilavancode Taluks Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., "In view of the award of the labour court dated 27.04.2001 in I.D.Nos. 154 to 165 of 2000 you were reemployed with effect from 27.05.2001. At present the society is running only 64 fair price shops and one soap manufacturing unit. We have sufficient number of permanent employees against the posts sanctioned for these units. In fact many of the permanent employees who were working in other units which were closed have been deployed to these units. As such there is no vacant post against which we could continue you in employment. In these circumstances, we have no option than to terminate your services which we hereby do, with effect from the closing hour of 211. 2001. We are enclosing a Kanyakumari Central Co-operative Bank, Marthandam Branch Cheque No.08680 dated 211. 2001 for Rs.6970/-being the wages payable to you for the period from 27-05-2001 to this date 27-11-2001." sd/- Special Officer, Kalkulam Vilavankode Taluks Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Soceity Ltd., No.Y.285, Marthandam. Encl: one Cheque To Thiru C. Livingston Michael Raj, S/o Chinna Wilson, Bethelpuram Vandavilai Neyyoor Post. K.K. Dist." 7. Questioning the communication dated 211. 2001, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.3369 of 2002 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by Order dated 29.09.2003. Encl: one Cheque To Thiru C. Livingston Michael Raj, S/o Chinna Wilson, Bethelpuram Vandavilai Neyyoor Post. K.K. Dist." 7. Questioning the communication dated 211. 2001, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.3369 of 2002 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by Order dated 29.09.2003. The Writ Petition came to be allowed solely on the ground that the act of the society i.e., the respondent, is malice in law and the Order dated 111. 2001 was passed only to get over the order of this Court in the W.P.No.19645 of 2001 dated 111. 2001 directing the Society to implement the award of the Labour Court. With the said finding the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition. .8. Mr.A. Thambusamy, learned counsel for the Appellant Society has submitted that inasmuch as the Society has implemented the award by reinstating the petitioner by Order dated 111. 2001, the award of the Labour Court was complied with, and the subsequent order dated 211. 2001 retrenched the petitioner for want of vacancy was a different cause of action and in such an event, the writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petition cannot be sustained against the co-operative society and anything found in the order of retrenchment cannot be questioned in writ petition without availing alternative remedy. He would also submit that the learned Judge is not correct in holding that the impugned order in the writ petition viz., the Order dated 211. 2001 was passed malice in law, since, after the writ petition No.19645 of 2001 was disposed of on 111. 2001 even without knowing the said direction the award implemented and when the same was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court had observed that in view of the subsequent development viz., the impugned order of retrenchment dated 211. 2001, this Court directed the matter to be agitated with the writ petition which came to be filed by the petitioner in questioning the order of retrenchment, there was no malafide on the part of the society in issuing the order dated 211. 2001 and learned Judge having found that there was no malafide on the part of the society, ought not to have found that by issuance of the order dated 211. 2001 the society has acted malice in law. 2001 and learned Judge having found that there was no malafide on the part of the society, ought not to have found that by issuance of the order dated 211. 2001 the society has acted malice in law. In the event this Court comes to the conclusion that there was no malice in law the writ petition itself must fail on the ground that it is not maintainable and in any event the same against the Co-operative society has to be fallen in view of the alternative remedy available to them. 9. We have also heard Mr. Chinnasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S. Arunachalam on behalf of the respondent. .10. From the facts which we have narrated above, the only question arose before this Court is whether the petitioner was in fact re-employed in terms of the award of the Labour Court, as the said order has become final and what is more is that this Court had also directed the respondent society to implement the said award. It is also to be considered whether the said award of the Labour Court and the directions given by this Court had been in fact implemented. We have extracted both the orders dated 111. 2001 and 211. 2001. A perusal of the order dated 111. 2001 shows that the petitioner was informed that he is reemployed without continuity of service, back wages and other benefits with effect from 27.05.2001 i.e., the date when the Award would have normally become enforceable and he is eligible for full wages from 27.05.2001. The petitioner was also informed that he should withdraw the writ petition as the award was implemented. There is no dispute that this communication dated 111. 2001 was received by the petitioner on 111. 2001. The further question remains is whether by virtue of the said order the respondent Society had implemented the award or not. Though the said order states that the petitioner is reinstated into service nothing is communicated as to what date the petitioner should report duty. From a perusal of the same order in the writ petition dated 211. 2001 it is clear that the petitioner was retrenched from the service solely on the ground of want of vacancy. This shows that on the date when the order dated 111. From a perusal of the same order in the writ petition dated 211. 2001 it is clear that the petitioner was retrenched from the service solely on the ground of want of vacancy. This shows that on the date when the order dated 111. 2001 was passed there was no vacancy and the said order came to be passed only to show that the award of the Labour Court was implemented. Since there was no such vacancy the petitioner also did not join duty. If the petitioner had not joined duty as has been directed the Society cannot be allowed to contend that the award was implemented and obviously the petitioner was reinstated with his service only to show that the award was implemented and on a subsequent order, the petitioner was retrenched solely on the ground of want of vacancy. In view of the above the learned Judge come to the conclusion that the respondent has acted malice in law. 11. From the above facts narrated, we are of the considered view there is no infirmity in the said finding and if the said finding is correct, the question of either maintainability or availing alternative remedy does not arise as the writ petitioner is concerned with regard to the implementation of the order of this Court. For all the above reason, there is no merit in the appeal, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 12. W.P.Nos.33711 to 33714 of 2003 have been filed by the employees who are similarly placed as that of W.P.No.3369 of 2002. For the same reasons, these writ petitions should also succeed. 13. Accordingly the Order made in W.P.No.3369 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge, dated 29.09.2003 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.33711 to 33714 of 2003 are allowed.