JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to order passed in C.P.No.1014/97 dated 29.10.2004 on the file of the Principal Judge Labour Court Chennai, third respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to reinstate the petitioner as cook in Tamil Nadu Tourism and Development Corporation with backwages at an increased rate with all other benefits as per order passed by the Appellate Authorities in Appeal No.214/94 dated 21.11.95.) 1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to order passed in C.P.No.1014/97 dated 29.10.2004 on the file of the Principal Labour Court Chennai/third respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to reinstate the petitioner as cook in Tamil Nadu Tourism and Development Corporation with backwages at an increased rate with all other benefits as per order passed by the Appellate Authorities in Appeal No.214/94 dated 21.11.95. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined service as a cook at Tamil Nadu Tourism and Development Corporation in Tamil Nadu Hotel Beach Resort Complex, Mamallapuram on 01.07.1989 and he sent representation to the authorities requesting them to absorb him as permanent cook and regularise his service. He was terminated from service on 16.06.1992 without assigning any reason whatsoever. The petitioner approached the legal services Authorities and constrained to file an appeal No.214 of 1994 before the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment Act, 1958 for his reinstatement as Cook in Hotel Tamil Nadu. When the said appeal was posted for enquiry on behalf of the management, Regional Manager, Beach Resort Complex, Tamil Nadu Tourism and Development Corporation expressed his willingness for settlement and arrived at a settlement before the Appellate Authority and agreed to reinstate the petitioner in any place other than Mamallapuram and agreed to issue orders of appointment on or before 10.10.1994. The General Manager passed an order on 04.11.1994 calling the petitioner to contact the Regional Manager, Beach Resort Complex and subsequently by letters dated 06.12.1994, 11.01.1995, 09.02.1995, 24.04.1995 and 03.05.1995, the Regional Manager, Beach Resort Complex, Mamallapuram called upon him to report for duty and on all the occasions, when the petitioner reported for duty, the Regional Manager Beach Resort Complex, Tamil Nadu Hotels, Mamallapuram declined to permit him to join duty demanding for withdrawal of the Appeal pending before the Appellate Authority. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to non-compliance of the settlement dated 06.03.1994 by the Regional Manager, Beach Resort Complex, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority, under the Catering establishment act. The Assistant Commissioner – Labour has passed orders on merits dated 21.11.1995 and directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages from 04.11.1994. Due to noncompliance of the order by the first respondent, the petitioner sent representation through his counsel dated 21.05.1996 requesting the authorities to reinstate him with backwages from 06.10.1994 and to comply with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism and Development Corporation by his order Pro.No.5560/HA3/96 dated 10.05.1996 reinstated the petitioner as casual labour at Beach Resort Complex, Mamallapuram with continuity of service and with all back wages with effect from 04.11.1994 and on the basis of the order passed by the Managing Director, the Senior Manager, Hotel Tamil Nadu Beach Resort Complex by his letter No.503/HTN/BRC/MPN/96 dated 15.06.1996 stating that the petitioner had been asked to join on 30.05.1996 and to continue the service from 01.06.1996. But he had not attended the duty till 15.06.1996 and therefore asked one Sekar to join duty immediately but on the contrary the petitioner had reported for duty on 30.05.1996 and he was asked to attend the duty of dish washing whereas the petitioner was rendering service originally as a cook at the time of termination. The petitioner sent representation through his counsel dated 12.07.1996 stating all the facts and requesting the authorities to reinstate him in the post of cook immediately with all attendant benefits. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has reported for duty the authorities used to decline to permit him to render service as cook and asked him only to render service as dishwasher. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has reported for duty the authorities used to decline to permit him to render service as cook and asked him only to render service as dishwasher. When the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated as cook, the post in which he was terminated from service, it is also just and necessary to reinstate the petitioner in service as cook with all benefits instead of dishwasher post offered by them. The petitioner requested the authorities to reinstate him to the post of cook with all the benefits through his representations dated 19.08.1996, 03.01.1998, 30.07.1998. Since the respondent has neither reinstated him as cook nor filed any appeal by way of writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority passed in Appeal 214 of 1996 filed under Section 19(2) a of the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishment Act and the same had become final, the petitioner had filed C.P.No.1014 of 1997 on 04.09.1997 for a direction to pay arrears of salary Rs.28,800/- from 04.11.1994 to 05.09.1997 and subsequent salary at the rate of Rs.900/- p.m. or at increased rate till his reinstatement. The Labour Court by its order dated 29.10.2004 dismissed the computation petition in C.P.No.1014 of 1997 stating that it is evident from the averments contained in paragraph No.3 of the counter that a settlement was arrived between the petitioner and the respondents under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is marked Ex.R1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent/Labour Court dated 29.10.2004 dismissing the computation petition in C.P.No.1014 of 1997 the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. The petitioner has fairly submitted that he was appointed on compassionate ground in Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the year 2016 and at present he is gainfully employed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents stating that on 04.10.1994 a settlement was entered into under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act wherein it had been agreed between the petitioner and respondent Management that the petitioner would be reappointed as a Casual workman on daily wage of Rs.20/- and that the petitioner would not be entitled to any wages for the period of his non- employment and that the official respondents would have the right to appoint the petitioner in any place other than the Mamallapuram Complex. The official respondents by letter dated 04.11.1994 called upon the petitioner to report before the Regional Manager, Hotel Tamil Nadu, Mamallapuram and rejoin duty as per the Regional Manager''s instructions. The petitioner was given a posting at the Tamil Nadu Hotel, Kanchipuram. However the petitioner for reasons best known to him avoided reporting for duty and ultimately only by letter dated 30.05.1996 the petitioner stated that he would be reporting for duty and promised to report for duty from 01.06.1996. The petitioner reported for duty only on 01.06.1996, but thereafter did not turn up for work and only continued to correspond with the official respondents without actually reporting for duty. Alleging that he is entitled to wages, which was not paid to him from 04.11.1994 to 04.09.1997, the petitioner filed C.P.No.1014/97 before the third respondent. It was submitted before the third respondent that the petitioner had not worked during the relevant period, he was not entitled to wages, and moreover as the petitioner was gainfully employed, he was not interested in employment. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not engaged as Cook but was engaged only as casual workman. The petitioner not being a cook was directed to do other duties and admittedly the petitioner had sent a notice to which a reply had been given by the official respondents. It is also denied that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated as Cook. Admittedly the petitioner had been working in Gangadhara Appliances and therefore he was reluctant to join duty. It is also a true fact that the petitioner had filed C.P.No.1014/07 and the same was dismissed by the third respondent/Labour Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the terms of the settlement. The petition under Section 33(c) (2) of the I.D.Act being akin to execution proceedings, cannot decide disputed questions as there is no pre-existing right. The petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate Authority for redressal of his grievance and could not agitate the same in a petition under Section 33(C) (2). The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 further submitted that the terms of Ex.R1 viz., settlement dated 04.10.1994 is explicit and has categorically spelt out that the petitioner would not be entitled to backwages for the period that he was not in employment. Hence he prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 further submitted that the terms of Ex.R1 viz., settlement dated 04.10.1994 is explicit and has categorically spelt out that the petitioner would not be entitled to backwages for the period that he was not in employment. Hence he prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. In this case it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was initially working in Tamil Nadu Tourism and Development Corporation and was subsequently terminated on 16.06.1992. The Appellate Authority/the Assistant Commissioner of Labour passed an order on merits dated 21.11.1995 directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with back wages from 04.11.1994. Then a settlement was arrived between the petitioner and the respondent Management under Section 18(1) of the I.D.Act 1947 which has been marked as Ex.R1 by which it was agreed that the petitioner will be casual labour on wages of Rs.20/- per day on the same terms and conditions of service that were applicable to him at the time of discharge from service but without back wages for that period. The petitioner was asked to report for duty on 30.05.1996 and he reported only for one day on 01.06.1996 and thereafter he did not turn up for work and was corresponding with the respondent Management without actually reporting for duty. The petitioner filed C.P.No.1047 of 1997 before the third respondent/ labour Court, Chennai claiming wages for the period from 04.11.1994 to 04.09.1997 for a sum of Rs.28,800/-. The first respondent and the second respondent have rightly denied the back wages to the petitioner since he did not work during the relevant period and that was also taken into consideration by the third respondent/labour Court, Chennai which has also rightly dismissed the C.P.No.1047 of 1997 filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order passed in C.P.No.1047 of 1997 dated 29.10.2004 is extracted as hereunder:- The petitioner did not raise any question relating to Ex.R1. This petition was filed under Section 33(c) (2). The petitioner has not filed any I.D.for reinstatement in service. As per term No.1 of Ex.R1 the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages. So, all the other documents have no relevance at all. The petitioner has no pre-existing right to claim wages for the period of non-employment. This petition was filed under Section 33(c) (2). The petitioner has not filed any I.D.for reinstatement in service. As per term No.1 of Ex.R1 the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages. So, all the other documents have no relevance at all. The petitioner has no pre-existing right to claim wages for the period of non-employment. For the reasons state above, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount as claimed in the petition. The point is answered accordingly. 7. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been appointed on compassionate ground in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the year 2016 and that at present he is gainfully employed. He also produced a copy of the Proc.No.PNT3/20088/2014-7 dated 23.02.2016 to that effect. 8. In view of the above factum of the case this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the third respondent labour Court in C.P.No.1014/97 dated 29.10.2004 and the same is hereby confirmed. 9. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed and to meet the ends of justice the respondent Management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. 10. The above order is passed taking into consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is also made clear that this case shall not be cited as precedent in any other case.