L. Narayana Swamy, J.

Initially, the appellant herein had approached this court in W.P.No.30660/2004 and sought for a declaration that he has been working as a permanent officer of respondent No. 1 Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., Head Office at Calcutta, having retained his permanent lien against the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant - Grade I. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 01.03.2004 with an observation that the petitioner has to approach for redressal of remedy in terms of civil law. That order was challenged before the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 2607/2004 and the writ appeal also came to be dismissed on 11.10.2004 confirming the order in W.P.No.30660/2004 dated 01.03.2004.

2. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.184/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Srirangapatna and the said suit also came to be dismissed. Against which he preferred an appeal in RA No. 73/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, at Srirangapatna. It also came to be dismissed. Therefore he is before this court in this second appeal.

3. The appellant states that he joined the office/establishment of the first respondent/defendant in the year 1986. The second respondent/defendant - Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd., (for short 'MNPM') published an internal advertisement dated 14.03.1991 called upon the employees who are interested to seek transfers to the MNPM, that accordingly, the appellant-plaintiff was transferred to the second respondent company by orders dated 21.11.1991, initially for a period of six months and thereafter it was extended. The appellant has made several representations seeking repatriation to his parental company, i.e., first respondent company. Instead of considering his request for repatriation, made the appellant to continue in the second respondent MNPM till 2002. In the meanwhile, the second respondent company wound up in the year 2002. Hence he had approached this court in the above said writ petition and the writ appeal seeking repatriation to the first respondent company. The same was not considered.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has committed an error in not allowing the suit wherein the appellant - plaintiff had made a prayer for declaring that he is the employee of the first respondent company in a supervisor cadre and also to reinstate him in the employment with effect from 12.09.2000 with continuity of service, protection of seniority and all other consequential benefits and other reliefs.

5. On service of notice, the first respondent/defendant filed written statement contending that the second respondent/defendant company is a separate company. The appellant-plaintiff was transferred to the second respondent/company on his own request, it was not treated as a normal transfer and the plaintiff was not allowed any transfer benefit. After joining the services of the second respondent/defendant company, the appellant was governed by the rules and regulations of the second defendant company. The appellant was drawing the salary from the second respondent/defendant and he was under the direct and pervasive control of the second defendant company. It is also submitted that plaintiff-appellant being a non-executive, unit cadre employee and upon his transfer, he was on the rolls of the second respondent/defendant company. Further it was denied that the lien is not automatic and no lien was granted to the appellant-plaintiff at any point of time. It is also submitted that the office order dated 26.11.1991 referred to by the appellant was regarding extending the benefit of new pay scales to the employees of second respondent/defendant company including the appellant-plaintiff also. The benefit of new pay scales for the period from 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1991 was extended to the employees of the second respondent/defendant company prior to the reference of the said company to the BIFR. For the above reason all the emp