S R P NAMPI REDDIAR; GOPALAKRISHNAN; INDIRAAMMAL N ; SURESH N ; LAKSHMI V ; USHA; SELVI Vs. AMBILIMOL, PUTHUPARAMBIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C).17254/2010 is filed by an employer challenging the Award passed in an industrial dispute raised by the respondent employee. Inter alia the challenge is made on the ground that the Award passed is ex parte. Admittedly, the employer petitioner is no more. The legal heirs have now come on record. The legal heirs of the employer had also approached this Court with a separate writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the order, passed in a Claim Petition under Section 33C (2), which is numbered as WP(C).15295/2014. W.P.(C). 15295/2014 was filed by the legal heirs of the employer, initially only against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated.

(2.) For proper adjudication of the cases, a brief look first at the proceedings in the earlier writ petition is essential. When the writ petition was filed by the employer, there was a stay of the Award. Subsequently, the employee moved an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the ID Act'). That was allowed by an order dated 14.10.2010. Since the Award had directed reinstatement of the workman, this Court directed payment of arrears of wages from 02.06.2010 to the workman and to continue payment of wages at the rate of the last drawn wages. Since only Rs.9000/- was paid pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the employee was again before this Court seeking vacation of the interim order. This Court, by order dated 30.07.2012, recorded the submission made by the employee that no amounts were paid and directed the counsel for the employer to report as to whether the order under Section 17B had been complied with. Later on, by order dated 07.08.2012, noticing that the order was not complied with, the stay stood vacated.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the employee under Section 33C(2), approached the Labour Court with a Claim Petition numbered as 52 of 2009 wherein initially the proprietor, who was made a party, was the only respondent and later, on his demise, the legal heirs were impleaded. The Claim Petition was allowed, as per order dated 23.08.2013 which is produced as Ext.R1(A) in W.P.(C).15295/2014. The said order is sought to be challenged by way of an amendment.