ORDER This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 8.2.1999 on the file of the respondent whereby the respondent has decided that the petitioner is presumed to have no intention to report for work and as such, she shall be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned her claim for employment in the respondent society. 2. The writ petition has got a chequered history and the matter shows the unfortunate case of a typist employed in the respondent organization temporarily on a daily wage of Rs. 20/-. 3. The factual matrix as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under: The petitioner was employed as a typist with the Tamil Nadu Sugar Federation Limited from 1984 onwards and she was terminated as per proceedings dated 27.3.1986. At the time of her termination, she was paid at the rate of Rs. 20/ as wages. The dispute with regard to the non-employment of the petitioner was taken up before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 254 of 1987 and in the said dispute, an award was passed by the Labour Court on 5.1.1989 and the respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent filed W.P. No. 3559 of 1989 and the writ petition was dismissed as per order dated 18.4.1998 and accordingly, the award was confirmed. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner called upon the respondent as per her letter dated 9.6.1998 to reinstate her as per the order of the High Court. The said letter was replied by the respondent on 15.6.1998 and they have stated that the copy of the order has not been received by them. Immediately, the petitioner has submitted a copy of the order along with her letter dated 25.8.1998. It was followed by letter dated 20.9.1998 addressed to the petitioner by the respondent wherein they have indicated that the petitioner was reinstated as a temporary typist on a daily wage of Rs. 20/-. Immediately, the petitioner sent a reply dated 20.10.1998 through her counsel stating that their order reinstating the petitioner on daily wages of Rs. It was followed by letter dated 20.9.1998 addressed to the petitioner by the respondent wherein they have indicated that the petitioner was reinstated as a temporary typist on a daily wage of Rs. 20/-. Immediately, the petitioner sent a reply dated 20.10.1998 through her counsel stating that their order reinstating the petitioner on daily wages of Rs. 20/- per day which she received a decade ago at the time of termination in 1986 amounts to non-compliance of the order of the High Court and as such, she expressed her willingness to join duty only in case she was offered daily wages at the prevailing rate at the time of her reinstatement. On receipt of the said notice, the respondent filed an application in W.M.P. No. 27817 of 1998 in W.P. No. 3559 of 1989, seeking clarification from the High Court as to whether they were justified in reinstating the petitioner as temporary typist on a daily wage of Rs. 20/- or whether the petitioner/first Respondent therein was entitled to be reinstated with regularization of her service. The said Petition was dismissed by this Court as per order dated 4.12.1998. Thereafter the respondent as per their letter dated 22.12.1998 and 8.2.1999 called upon the petitioner to report for duty on a daily wage @ Rs. 20/- per day. However, the petitioner as per her letter dated 3.3.1999 informed the respondent that it was not proper on their part to offer the very same Rs. 20/- per day as wages after such a long time. 5. In the Order dated 8.2.1999, the respondent has declared that the petitioner has no intention to resume duty and as such, she was deemed to have waived her right. Accordingly, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 6. Even though the matter was admitted as early as in the year 1999, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. 7. Thiru. D. Hariparandaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was always ready and willing to join the respondent organization and her anxiety was only in respect of the wage offered by the respondent inasmuch as she was getting Rs. 20/- even in the year 1984 and as such, there was no justification on the part of the respondent in their offer to continue to pay wages @ Rs. 20/- per day. 20/- even in the year 1984 and as such, there was no justification on the part of the respondent in their offer to continue to pay wages @ Rs. 20/- per day. It was the further contention of the learned counsel that there was no occasion for the petitioner to waive her right inasmuch as she had been agitating the matter since 1986 as borne out by the proceedings and as such, it cannot be said that she has abandoned the service. 8. Thiru Denny, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that due opportunity was given to the petitioner to join the organization and in spite of such opportunity, the petitioner failed to join and as such, the respondent was justified in their action as well as their reasoning that she is deemed to have left the service. 9. It is found from the order dated 18.4.1998 in W.P. No. 3559 of 1939, that the case projected by the petitioner and found acceptance by the Labour Court was confirmed by this Court .and in the subsequent application filed by the respondent to clarify the order, the respondent has stated that the petitioner was reinstated in service as temporary typist on daily wages. The said affidavit was sworn to on 14.11.1998. After the dismissal of the clarification Petition by this Court, the petitioner was asked to join duty as per communication dated 22.12.1998 and the same was followed by the impugned Order dated 8.2.199Immediately, on receipt of the impugned Order, the petitioner has submitted a reply through her lawyer on 3.3.1999 wherein it was the case of the petitioner that the respondent has not complied with the order of the High Court. It was also indicated in the said reply that the petitioner was willing to report for work if the respondent is prepared to reinstate her with the present rate of wage as any other daily wage employee is paid. The impugned Order proceeds on the basis that though the order of appointment was made by the respondent, it was not accepted by the petitioner and as such, she was deemed to have abandoned her service. 10. While deciding the question as to whether there was waiver or abandonment on the part of the petitioner, the interse proceeding between the parties as well as the actual situation assumes significance. 10. While deciding the question as to whether there was waiver or abandonment on the part of the petitioner, the interse proceeding between the parties as well as the actual situation assumes significance. The petitioner has been agitating her right for all these years. Originally, she raised the dispute which was the subject matter of I.D. No. 254 of 1987 and an award was passed in her favour whereby she' was directed to be reinstated with benefit of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. The said award was confirmed by this Court as per order dated 18.4.1998 in W.P. No. 3559 of 1989. It was only the petitioner who brought to the attention of the respondent about the dismissal of the writ petition, by way of her letter issued through her advocate dated 8.6.1998 as well as the subsequent letter sent by the petitioner on 15.6.1998. Initially, the respondent was pleading ignorance of the High Court order and when the petitioner approached the respondent with a request to comply with the order of the High Court, their immediate response was that they have not received a copy of the order and as such, the order copy was furnished by the petitioner and even then, there was no attempt on the part of the respondent to reinstate the petitioner as directed by the Labour Court. In the clarification petition filed in this Court in W.M.P. No. 27817 of 1998, it was the query of the respondent as to whether "in they were justified in restating the petitioner as temporary typist on a daily wage of Rs. 20/- or whether the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated with regularization of services. The said Petition was dismissed by this Court and immediately, the petitioner was asked to join duty, as is evident from the communication dated 22.12.199S and the same was followed by the impugned Order dated 8.2.1999. 11. From the course of conduct adopted by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was an intentional waiver of her right and that she has abandoned the service. 11. From the course of conduct adopted by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was an intentional waiver of her right and that she has abandoned the service. Even though it was the contention of the respondent that the impugned Order dated 8.2.1999 is altogether a different proceeding and it has no connection with the earlier proceedings, I am of the view that it is not open to the respondent to come up with such a contention in the face of the award of the Labour Court, as confirmed by this Court. 12. There is a clear finding in the award of the Labour Court that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. The award was passed as early as in the year 1989 and the order was sought to be implemented by the respondent in the year 1998. When they have come up with an offer that they would pay only a sum of Rs. 20/- per day, which was the rate at which wages were paid to the petitioner in the year 1984, naturally, the petitioner was in dilemma. After consultation with her lawyer, she has issued a notice to the respondent on 3.3.1999 informing that she is willing to join duty, provided she is paid wages at the rate at which any other daily wage employee is paid. Since the respondent has not complied with the order of the Labour Court, as confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 3559 of 1989, in its letter and spirit, it cannot come from the mouth of the respondent that there was an intentional waiver of the right of the petitioner. The respondent being a Cooperative Federation, should have come up with an offer to take back the petitioner on payment of wages that was payable to any other daily rated employee and the very fact that the respondent has offered only a sum of Rs. 20/- per day as wages shows that their intention was not to reinstate the petitioner but only to see that the petitioner foregoes her claim in respect of employment under the respondent. 13. 20/- per day as wages shows that their intention was not to reinstate the petitioner but only to see that the petitioner foregoes her claim in respect of employment under the respondent. 13. In AIR 2001 SC 2270 : (2001) 5 SCC 169 : 2001-II-LLJ- 252, the Apex Court while considering the impact of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, also considered the entitlement of an employee to get salary on par with other employees during the time of reinstatement and observed thus at p. 255 of LLJ: "10. .... It needs no debate to conclude that on reinstatement the respondent will be entitled to his salary on a par with other employees working in the same post and it is in that meaning that the said clause "and is paid his salary regularly in accordance with law" has to be understood........" 14. In similar circumstances, when the question regarding punishment was an issue, learned Judge of this Court in R. Annadurai v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore made in W.P. No. 20860 of 1993 batch dated 28.7.2000 observed thus: "31 ..... Under common law, an inference that an employee has abandoned service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances, an inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment of service is always a question of intention and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus, whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case." 15. As held by the Apex court in 2003-I-LLJ-816, there is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. 16. In the present case, there was a direction in the award dated 5.1.1989 that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. 16. In the present case, there was a direction in the award dated 5.1.1989 that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. The said direction enables the petitioner to get all the subsequent revision in the matter of pay as well as allowance. The initial wage of Rs. 20/-per day was fixed in the year 1984 and there were corresponding increase in the salary/daily wage in respect of other daily rated employees. When there was an offer of appointment from the respondent, they should have indicated that the petitioner is entitled to the wages that are payable to daily wage worker prevailing as on date. When there was no such indication in the offer of the respondent, calling upon the petitioner to join duty, the petitioner was justified in insisting for payment of wages at prevailing rate as a condition for joining services and as she was also armed with an order of the Labour Court as confirmed by this Court. Therefore, it is clear that there was no intentional abandonment or waiver on the part of the petitioner and she was fully justified in insisting for payment of prevailing wage as a condition for joining service. 17. The impugned Order passed by the respondent is nothing but part of the litigation between the parties and as such, it cannot be said that the same is an independent cause of action for the petitioner so as to compel her to initiate another proceeding before the Labour Court. Since the earlier award of the Labour Court is very clear and as the same was confirmed by this Court, and also on account of the statement made by the respondent in their clarification petition that the petitioner has already been reinstated, it cannot be said that the petitioner has to approach the competent authority in the matter and she is not entitled to maintain the writ petition. 18. It would be appropriate to quote the following observation of the Supreme Court in 1993-II- LLJ-563 wherein it was observed thus at p. 565 of LLJ: "5. Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adopted by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before the one or the other authority. They have-literally persecuted her. Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adopted by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before the one or the other authority. They have-literally persecuted her. Despite unequal-strength the opposite party has managed to survive. We are informed that the opposite party has been reinstated. This was put forward as bona fide conduct of petitioner to persuade us to modify the order in respect of back wages. Facts speak otherwise. Working life of opposite party is indeed pitiable and has been lost 'in this tortuous and painful litigation of more than twenty years. For such thoughtless acts of its officers the petitioner-society has to suffer and pay an amount exceeding three lakhs. But considering the agony and suffering of the opposite party that amount cannot be a proper recompense. We, therefore, dismiss this Petition as devoid of any merit and direct the petitioner to comply with the directions of the High Court within the time granted by it......" 19. It is evident from the proceedings that the petitioner has been dragged from pillar to post and the respondent alone is responsible for the multiple litigation. Had the respondent indicated in their order that they would pay the petitioner the prevailing wage of daily rated employees, there would not be any difficulty for the petitioner to join duty, as such an intention was indicated by her in all her correspondence with the respondent. However, the respondent was not mentally prepared to take back the petitioner as their staff in spite of the fact that the case projected by the respondent was rejected by the Labour Court as well as this Court. 20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.2.1999 is set aside and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner as Typist and she is entitled to wages as that of other daily rated employees, prevailing on the date on which she joins duty and she is entitled to statutory wages, if any available to the daily rated workers. No costs. Writ petition allowed.