Judgment 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 28th June 2011 in Claim Petition No.278/2009 on the file of Labour Court, Cuddalore allowing the Claim Petition and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,13,000/- as arrears of salary for the period from 1st January 1998 to 31st October 2009 to the First Respondent. The Facts: 2. The First Respondent wasan Employee under the Petitioner. He was a Salesman. The First Respondent was dismissed for service on 29th January 1998 on account of his commission of certain irregularities. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court . Since the Management failed to contest the matter, an ex parte award was passed on 21st June 2001 in I.D. No. 46 of 2000, directing re-instatement with backwages. The Application filed by the Management to set aside the ex parte award was dismissed. The award therefore, has become final. The Petitioner failed to comply with the directions contained in the award. This made the First Respondent to file a Claim Petition before the Labour Court, Cuddalore. The Labour Court after hearing both sides, passéd on order directing the Petitioner to pay arrears to salary. The said order is challenged in the present Writ Petition. Submission: 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on Section 19(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act contended that the award was barred by limitation and as such, the Labour Court grievously erred in entertaining the Clam Petition. According to the leaned Counsel the award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act would be in operation only for a period of one year. The award was passed on 21st June 2001. However, the Claim Petition was filed only during the year 2009. However, the Claim Petition was filed only during the year 2009. Therefore, it was clearly barred by limitation. The said aspect was not considered by the Labour Court and as such the learned Counsel wanted this Court to set aside the order. 4. The learned Counsel for the First Respondent by placing reliance on the Judgment of Kerala High Court in Annamma Thomas v. T. Joseph, 1984 (2) LLN 813 (Ker.) : 1984 Indlaw Ker. 108, contended that Section 19(3) has no application to the case on hand. 4. The learned Counsel for the First Respondent by placing reliance on the Judgment of Kerala High Court in Annamma Thomas v. T. Joseph, 1984 (2) LLN 813 (Ker.) : 1984 Indlaw Ker. 108, contended that Section 19(3) has no application to the case on hand. The learned Counsel submitted that the direction regarding re-instatement does not cease to e in force after a period of one year. The learned Counsel further contended that the Petitioner has filed on Application to set aside the ex parte award later. The date of dismissal of the said Application necessarily should be taken into consideration, to decide as to whether the award was barred by limitation. Analysis: 5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the award passed by the Labour Court dated 21st June 2001 in I.D. No. 46 of 2000 was barred by limitation on account of the operation of sub-section (3) or Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The challenge to the order passed by the Labour Court is only on the ground that after a period of one year from the date of award, no claim could be made on the basis of the said award. 7. There is no dispute that the award in question was made on 21st June 2001. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an Application in I.A. No. 93 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte award. The said Application was dismissed on 31st August 2009. It is a matter of record that the Claim Petition was filed o 16th November 2009. Even if the contention regarding the operation of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act is accepted, still the Petitioner has no case on merits on account of the initiation of Claim proceedings by the First Respondent within a period of one year from the date of dismissal of the Application in I.A. No.93 of 2008. Even though the award was passed on 21st June 2001, it had become final only after the dismissal of the Application filed in I.A. No. 93 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte award. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court erred in entertaining the Claim Petition. 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that an award would remain in operation for a period of one year. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court erred in entertaining the Claim Petition. 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that an award would remain in operation for a period of one year. The scope and ambit of the said provision was considered by the Kerala High Court in Annamma Thomas cited supra. The learned Judge after extracting the various judgments and the commentary on the law of Industrial Dispute, opined that an award of Industrial Tribunal declaring the termination of service of an Employee as invalid and inoperative and directing reinstatement with Bank Wages does not cases to be force after a period of one year mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 19. The contention taken by the Petitioner, therefore, has no basis. No other contentions were taken before me with respect of the legality and correctness of the award. I do not, therefore, find any merit in the Writ Petition. Result: 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. No. costs.