with continuity of service. According to the learned counsel, though the petitioner is entitled for salary after the award, he was not provided an employment and salary by the respondent Management. Therefore, he filed a computation petition in C.P.No.109 of 2008 and the same was partly allowed without appreciating that the order has to be implemented within a period of two months. With regard to the terminal benefits, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was allowed to retire on 30.04.2014 and therefore, he is entitled for all the terminal benefits. Though the Labour Court has awarded continuity of service in ID No.125 of 2018, the Management has not provided employment to the petitioner, imposing condition to withdraw the writ petition filed by him in WP(MD) No.12015 of 2014. Therefore, considering the award passed in I.D.No.125 of 1997, he is entitled for continuity of service, however, it was denied by the Management. The learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner is bed-ridden at present, a suitable direction may be issued to the respondent Management to disburse his salary as well as the retirement benefits.
