Judgment :- The above writ petitions are relating to the award of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, dated 110. 2001, in the industrial dispute filed before the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D.No.629 of 1991, which was later transferred to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, and renumbered as I.D.No.510 of 1992. 2. Since all the writ petitions are relating to the common award of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, dated 110. 2001, arising under the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. 3. The writ petition in W.P.No.24741 of 2002 has been filed by the Special Officer of Vellamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Vellamadam, Kanyakumari District, challenging the award of the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, dated 110. 2001, made in I.D.No.510 of 1992, on the ground that the said award, is illegal and void in so far as it directs the petitioner Bank to reinstate the employee with continuity of service. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner bank that the services of the employee, A. Asraf, with the petitioner Bank had ceased to exist and therefore, the employer employee relationship between the petitioner Bank and A. Asraf had not continued. In spite of the fact that the employee had voluntarily left the services of the petitioner Bank and had joined in Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District, the Labour Court had erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner Bank is liable to reinstate the employee with continuity of service from 290. 5. It was also contended that the Labour Court had failed to consider the letter, dated 18. 90, issued by the Special Officer, Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, requesting the petitioner Bank to relieve the employee from its services, since he was employed as a Secretary of Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited,, from 18. 90. Further, the Labour Court had failed to take note of the letter written by the employee, on 18. 90, informing the Special officer of the petitioner Bank stating that since he was joining as the Secretary of Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, he would not make any request for employment in the petitioner Bank, at a later date, under any circumstances. The said letter had been written to the petitioner Bank by the employee, voluntarily, and there was no coercion used against the employee to compel him to send the said letter. The said letter had been written to the petitioner Bank by the employee, voluntarily, and there was no coercion used against the employee to compel him to send the said letter. The employer-employee relationship had terminated after the employee, A. Asraf, had left the services of the petitioner Bank, from 18. 90, and he had no lien on the petitioner Bank, in any manner. In such circumstances, the Labour Court had arrived at the wrong conclusion that the employer-employee relationship had not ceased to exist even after the employee had left the services petitioner Bank. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court, dated 110. 2001, made in I.D.No.510 of 1992, is liable to be set aside. .6. The writ petition in W.P.No.16888 of 2002, has been filed by the Special Officer, Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District, challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 110. 2001, made in I.D.No.510 of 1992, in so far as it directs the management of the Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, to pay to the employee, A.Asraf, 50% of the wages due to him based on his last drawn salary, for the period from 18. 90 to 210. 90, after deducting the amounts paid as salary, if any, until the management of Vellamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited,, Vellamadam, Kanyakumari District, provides employment to the said employee. 7. The main contention of the petitioner Bank is that the employee, A. Asraf, had joined the services of the petitioner Bank, on 18. 90, and after working for 2 days, he had gone on medical leave, on 28. 90. Thereafter, on 29. 90, the Special Officer of the petitioner Bank had cancelled the appointment of the employee as Secretary. When the employee had reported for duty, on 10. 90, at the end of his leave period, he was appointed as a Senior Clerk. Further, the newly elected Board of Directors of the petitioner Bank had assumed charge, on 10. 90, and it had decided that the appointment of the employee, A. Asraf, was irregular. On 210. 90, the elected President of the Petitioner Bank had passed orders terminating the services of A. Asraf from the post of Senior Clerk on the ground that his appointment was not made in accordance with the bye-laws of the Bank. 90, and it had decided that the appointment of the employee, A. Asraf, was irregular. On 210. 90, the elected President of the Petitioner Bank had passed orders terminating the services of A. Asraf from the post of Senior Clerk on the ground that his appointment was not made in accordance with the bye-laws of the Bank. In such circumstances, the Labour Court had passed an erroneous award making the petitioner Bank liable to pay 50% of the wages due to the employee, as stated in the award. 8. The writ petition in W.P.No.3812 of 2004, has been filed by A. Asraf, challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 110. 2001, made in I.D.No.510 of 1992, in so far as it denies the petitioner 50% of the backwages due to him from Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, and to direct the management of the said Bank to pay the full backwages and all other attendant benefits, with interest, at 12% per annum. .9. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined the services of Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District, on 18. 90. Thereafter, he was on medical leave till 30.90. Even though, when the petitioner had joined the services of Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, he was told that he would be functioning as its Secretary, he was given the post of Senior Clerk, on his return to duty at the end of his medical leave. Therefore, he was designated as a Senior Clerk and he was asked to perform various duties including that of the Secretary of the Bank. However, when the elected Board of Directors had taken charge of the management of the Bank, from 10. 90, they had concluded that his appointment was irregular. Therefore, the petitioners services were terminated, by an order, dated 110. 90, without any prior notice to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Madurai, with regard to his non-employment in I.D.No.629 of 1991, which was, later, transferred to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, and re-numbered as I.D.No.510 of 1992. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli, had passed an award, dated 110. 2001, directing the Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, to pay 50% of the backwages, based on his last drawn wages, as on 18. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli, had passed an award, dated 110. 2001, directing the Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, to pay 50% of the backwages, based on his last drawn wages, as on 18. 90, as stated therein, since the petitioner is eligible to get full backwages from Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, as the order of termination passed by the said bank was held to be illegal and void. 10. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above writ petitions had admitted that the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, in its award, dated 110. 2001, made in I.D.No.510 of 1992, was erroneous, as it does not clarify the issues relating to the employer- employee relationship between the employee, A.Asraf, and Vellamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited and Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited as his employers. Further, there is no clear finding as to how the employee had a lien on Vellamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, after his employment with the said Bank had ceased to exist on his voluntary resignation to join the services of Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited. Once the Labour Court had come to a conclusion that the employee is to be reinstated in the services of Vellamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, it has not been made clear as to how Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, is liable to pay 50% of the backwages due to him. However, there is no clear finding as to how Vellamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, is liable to re-employ the petitioner in service, in spite of the fact that the services of the employee with the said Bank had come to an end after he had joined in the services of Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited. 11. In such circumstances, it was submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, to decide the issues arising for consideration, after giving sufficient opportunity to the employee, as well as to Nanthencode Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited and Vellamadam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, to meet the issues raised by the employee, in I.D.No.510 of 1992, without being influenced by its earlier findings, in accordance with law. It is open to the parties concerned to make appropriate representations to the Labour Court, Tirunelveli, with regard to the amounts already deposited before the Labour Court, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, with regard to the deposit of backwages said to have been due to the employee. On such representations being made, it is for the Labour Court to pass appropriate orders thereon, with regard to the amounts deposited by the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks, as backwages due to the employee. The Labour Court, Tirunelveli, is directed to pass the award as directed above, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.