( 1 ) THESE two Writ Appeals arise from a common judgment delivered by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 10067/88 and 10648/1988. the first mentioned writ petition was filed by the employer (who is the 1st respondent in these Writ Appeals), while the second-mentioned writ petition was filed by the appellant-employee. In fact, the judgment of the learned single Judge also disposes of A. S. No. 2611/86, which too was filed by the employer. A Letters Patent Appeal has baen preferred against it.

( 2 ) THE appellant, Sri B. V. Rao, who argued these appeals in person, was appointed as a Mechanical Maintenance Overseer on 8-11-1971 in the service of Willard India Ltd. , Calcutta. Chittivalasa Jute Mills is a Division of Willard. The appellant was confirmed in the service of Chittivalasa with effect from 1-4-1972, by order dated 26-6-1972. Hisservices were terminated by Chittivalasa on 9-2-1983. The termination was not in pursuance of any disciplinary enquiry, though the order states that the work of the appellant has not been satisfactory, and that the employer has lost confidence in the employee-appellant. Thereupon, the appellant instituted a suit, O. S. 299/ 1983, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking reliefs of reinstatement in service with all antecedent benefits or, in the alternative, damages/compensation for wrongful termination, in a sum of rs. 3 Lakhs, The employer (defendant) contested the suit. It sought to justify the termination as warranted by unsatisfactory service of the appellant. The employer also contended that the suit is barred under sections 14 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Prl. Subordinate judge, Visakhapatnam, held that the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that the termination of service of the appellant was wrongful, but that by virtue of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, the civil court cannot decree reinstatement of the appellant. The learned Subordinate Judge noted that the conditions of service of the appellant are not statutory, nor does art. 311 of the Constitution apply to him. He also noted that no relief is claimed by the appellant under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly he held the appellant entitled only to damages for wrongful termination, which he fixed at three years salary, which came to Rs 54,000/ -. The suit was, accordingly, decreed only for damages.

( 3 ) AFTER his suit was disposed of, and finding that the civil Court was unable to decree reinstatement, the appellant raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the competent authority (viz. , the Deputy commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam) to the Labour Court, visakhapatnami. D. No. 11/1987. The appellant contended that his termination was wrongful and by way of penalty and that, therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement in service with all anteccedent benefits. The employer resisted the proceedings contending that the appellant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that he belonged to managerial/supervisory cadre, and that having elected to pursue bis remedy in a civil court and also having obtained relief therefrom, he is estopped from invoking the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer thus contested the very maintainability of the industrial dispute. After enquiry, the Labour Court held that the appellant is a workman ; that he is not estopped from pursuing his remediesunder the Industrial disputes Act because of his resort to civil Court earlier; that the dismissal was wrongful, and that, therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement in service, with continuity of service. However, in view of the decree obtained by the appellant from the civil court, the Labour Court thought that he is not entitled to back wages, or any other monetary benefits from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The Award of the Labour Court was delivered on 2