Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent is a regular Government servant working in the Noon Meal Scheme and upon misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and she was removed from service in the year 1984. Hence, the first respondent preferred an appeal to the District Collector, Thanjavur District. On 22.06.1985, the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent was reinstated into service. While so, by order dated 31.07.1989, the third respondent removed the first respondent from service. Again, on appeal, by order dated 04.12.1989, the District Collector directed the educational authorities to reinstate the first respondent in service. Despite the order of District Collector, the first respondent was not reinstated. Therefore, the first respondent had raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.413 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Cuddalore. On 18.12.1997, the Labour Court passed an award in I.D.No.413 of 1992, directing the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent in service with continuity and monetary benefits. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not reinstate the first respondent into service. Hence, the aggrieved first respondent had filed the aforesaid claim petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis