Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. Questioning the legality and validity of the common order dated 24.1.2011 passed in W.P. No. 22818 and 22819 of 2008, the instant intra-court appeals have been preferred by the Management of Atomic Energy Employees Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd.

2. The facts leading to filing of these appeals, which arise from the same dispute, are :

The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as “employee”), while working as Assistant Manager, was terminated from service vide order dated 6.7.1991. Thereagainst, the employee preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Shops Act”). The appellate authority, having noted the fact that the employer has failed to establish charges by evidence recorded at enquiry, has set aside the order of termination, without there being an order of reinstatement or grant of any consequential benefits. Thereagainst, a Writ petition was preferred by the Management in W.P.No.2050 of 1994, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 18.8.2000. There against, an appeal being W.A. No. 871 of 2001 was preferred. A Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 6.11.2007, dismissed the appeal, observing as under :

“7. So far as backwages is concerned, the management had not taken any plea before the appellate authority or before learned single Judge that the respondent is not entitled for backwages, being in job in some other organisation during the intervening period. No such plea having been taken before the appellate authority or before the learned single Judge, or before this Court, we are not inclined to give any finding in this regard.”

3. It appears, in the meantime, that a petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming computation of monetary benefits arising from the setting aside the order of termination for the period from 1990 to January, 1994, was filed on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, being Claim Petition No.190 of 1994. Similarly, the employee has also filed a claim petition in C.P.No.525 of 2001 seeking similar relief for the period from February, 1994 to August, 2001. Both claim petitions were dismissed by the Principal Labour Court by two separate orders dated 16.5.2006 observing as under :

“.....In the absence of specific direction, computation of money cannot be possible, since this court has to function as a executing court pursuant to the award or settlement. Hence, there is force in the argument of the counsel for the respondent that it is for the petitioner to establish the entitlement to claim backwages. The mere fact that the order of termination was set aside cannot be a ground to claim monetary benefits of backwages and other benefits of bonus, exgratia and other service benefits. Hence, the petitioner failed to establish the entitlement of benefits as claimed in the petition and the point is answered against the petitioner.”

4. Being aggrieved, the employee has come up with the instant writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 22818 and 22819 of 2008, questioning the validity and legality of the orders dated 16.5.2006 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. Nos. 190 of 1994 and 525 of 2001 respectively and the consequential direction to the employer to effect payment as per the claim petitions.

5. The learned Single Judge examined the case of the employee as well as the management and set aside both the orders and remitted back the matter to the learned Labour Court to commute the wages payable to the employee, holding that the employee has pre-existing right to invoke the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of all benefits.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the Management has come up with these two writ appeals.

7. Mr. P. Anbarasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/management would submit that the grant of backwages is not automatic and as such, if there is no order to grant backwages, it amounts