Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 34323 of 2007, a Co-operative Bank, engaged the first respondent on a daily wage basis from 02.08.1994. On 30.06.1999, the petitioner Bank terminated his services forcing him to raise an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 101 of 2000.

2. The petitioner Bank filed W.P.(C) No. 34323 of 2007 questioning Ext.P6 order of the Labour Court. On the other hand, the first respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 19414 of 2006 seeking enforcement of Ext.P3 award.

3. For ease of reference and convenience, I take into consideration the facts and exhibits in W.P.(C) No. 34323 of 2007 for the narrative purpose.

4. As the record reveals, the second respondent, the Labour Court, rendered Ext.P3 award in the first respondent's favour. Among other things, the Labour Court has observed thus:

"9. Therefore it is held that the workman is entitled for notice pay and compensation in accordance with law. Since nothing of that sort was complied with, he would deem to be in service till his service is validly terminated.

10. Since all the regular appointments in the management society have to be done on the basis of recruitment rules of its own, the claim of the work