Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 27. 2000, made in I.D.Nos.318 and 319 of 1997. 3. The petitioner has stated that respondents 4 and 5 were employed as sales persons in the Public Distribution Scheme shops under the third respondent Bank. The petitioner Stores was supplying essential commodities and other items to the third respondent Bank, on credit basis, as per the directions of the second respondent. Since there was mis-management in the day to day affairs in the shops run by the third respondent, under the Public Distribution Scheme, the District Collector of Coimbatore, had passed an order, dated 27. 96, in Na.Ka.No.49758/96/K6, pursuant to the resolution, dated 17. 96, passed by the petitioner Stores, transferring the management of the shops from the control of the third respondent Bank to the petitioner Stores. Accordingly, the petitioner had taken over the management of both the shops covered under the order of the District Collector, Coimbatore, dated 27. 1996. While so, the respondents 4 and 5 had raised an industrial Dispute before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.318 and 319 of 1997, seeking reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The first respondent Labour Court had passed an award, dated 27. 2000, directing the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 and 3 to reinstate the respondents 4 and 5, with full backwages and continuity of service. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Stores is that the District Collector, Coimbatore, by his order, dated 27. 96, made in Na.Ka.No.49758/96/K6, had only transferred two Public Distribution Scheme Shops to be managed by the petitioner Stores. There was no order to employ the respondents 4 and 5, who were sales persons working in the said shops. The resolution passed by the petitioner Stores, on 17. 96, is also to the same effect. While so, the first respondent Labour Court had erroneously directed the petitioner Society, as well as the respondents 2 and 3 to employ the respondents 4 and 5 by its award, dated 27. The resolution passed by the petitioner Stores, on 17. 96, is also to the same effect. While so, the first respondent Labour Court had erroneously directed the petitioner Society, as well as the respondents 2 and 3 to employ the respondents 4 and 5 by its award, dated 27. 2000, made in I.D.Nos.318 and 319 of 1997. The first respondent Labour Court had not made it clear as to who would be the actual employer of the respondents 4 and 5, who were, admittedly, sales persons employed under the third respondent Bank. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 5 were also of the same view that the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 27. 2000, does not specify, clearly, as to who would be liable to employ the respondents 4 and 5, with continuity of service, along with the backwages due to them. The award of the Labour Court merely says that the petitioner Stores, as well as the respondents 2 and 3 are under an obligation to give employment to the fourth and fifth respondents, with continuity of service and with full backwages. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents 2 to 5, that since the award of the Labour Court, dated 27. 2000, is ambiguous this Court may remit the matter back to the first respondent Labour Court, to render a clear finding specifying whether the petitioner Stores or the third respondent Bank would be responsible for providing employment to the respondents 4 and 5 due to the transfer of the Public Distribution Scheme Shops, pursuant to the order of the District Collector, Coimbatore, dated 27. 96, made in Na.Ka.49758/96/K6. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents 2 to 5 , the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 27. 96, made in Na.Ka.49758/96/K6. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents 2 to 5 , the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 27. 2000, made in I.D.Nos.318 and 319 of 1997, is partly set aside only with regard to the finding that the petitioner Stores as well as the respondents 2 and 3 are responsible for re-employing the respondents 4 and 5 in service and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent Labour Court, with a direction to give a specific finding as to whether the petitioner Stores or the third respondent Bank is responsible for reemploying the respondents 4 and 5, with continuity of service and with backwages and with a further direction for the first respondent Labour Court to complete the said process, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In respect of the other findings, the award of the Labour Court stands sustained. The writ petition is allowed to the extent noted above. No costs.