This revision petition raises the question of the competency of an appeal to the Revenue Court from an order passed by the Conciliation Officer under S. 12(2) of the Madras Tanjore Tentants and Pannaiyals Protection Act, 1952. The Conciliation Officer, purporting to act under S. 12(3) of the Act, directed the restoration of the respondent to the service of the petitioner who is the landlord. The landlord filed an appeal to the Revenue Court against the order so directing him to take back the pannaiyal. The Revenue Court has rejected the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies in regard to an order under S. 12(3). Mr. Venkataraman, who appears for the landlord, contends that the order of the Revenue Court is wrong as the petitioner has a right of appeal by virtue of an express provision in that regard under S. 13(2) of the Act. S. 13 refers to adjudication of disputes between the landlord and a pannaiyal. But that jurisdiction is given to the Conciliation Officer only in respect of cases not otherwise expressly provided for under the Act., If there is an adjudication of disputes between landlord and a pannaiyal under the provisions of S. 13, there can be no doubt that there will be a right of appeal to an aggrieved party under Sub-S. 2 to that Section. The question then is whether the order of the Conciliation Officer in the instant case can be said to come within the terms of S. 13. Mr. Venkataraman contends that, as S. 13 refers to all disputes generally between landlord and a pannaiyal, it should comprehend a dispute in regard to the dismissal of a pannaiyal as well. It is no doubt true that the terms of S. 13 are wide; but it must be noticed that the Section itself opens by stating Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act. S. 12 is an express provision in regard to a particular class of disputes between the landlord and a pannaiyal, namely, that relating to the dismissal. That category of disputes between the landlord and pannaiyal should therefore be held to be taken out of the adm it of the authority given to the Conciliation Officer under S. 13. It is however, contended that, as both under Ss. 12 and 13, the jurisdiction to decide disputes is given to the Conciliation Officer and as the wording of S. 13 is wide enough to include all category of cases, the beneficent provisions as to appeal would apply to the instant case as well. I am unable to agree. As stated before, S. 13 does not in terms apply to cases covered by S. 12. It is however, contended that there is no understandable reason as to why the Legislature should confer a right of appeal to the Revenue Court from an order under S. 13(1) and why it should not confer such a right in regard to an order under S. 12(3), which practically compels the landowner to take back a pannaiyal against his choice. I am unable to see any force in this contention. If a statute does not provide a right of appeal in a particular case, there would be no purpose in examining the reason for it; for, if the reason is not good, we cannot imply a right of appeal where there is none. It may be that the Legislature thought that, in the case of orders directing pannaiyals to be restored to service, there should be a finality and no right of appeal. In most cases pannaiyals would be too poor to take up a matter in appeal. Secondly, it might have thought that there was no necessity for an appeal from the point of view of the land owner also because if he is unwilling to re-entertain the pannaiyal, he need only pay some compensation and be under no further obligation to take him back. The provisions of S. 12 are clear; there is no right of appeal conferred against order thereunder, I am therefore of opinion that the Revenue Court was right when it held that the appeal by the landlord against the order directing him to re-entertain the pannaiyal was not maintainable.

The civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.