SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SMALL INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Secretary to the Government, Small Small Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. THEy have come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge a common order passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court in C.P.Nos.408 of 1998 and 220, 223, 229 to 231, 319, 321 and 328 of 2000. But, however, the Writ Petitions have been confined to C.P.Nos.408 of 1998, 220, 229, 230, 231 and 319 of 2000 before the Labour Court.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are the employees of the various Industrial Units established by the Tamil Nadu Smal Industries Limited (TANSI). THE contesting respondents in each of the Writ Petitions, filed a claim statement seeking for pension. THE case of the workmen were based upon an order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.1917 and 1928 of 1980 dated 18.1.198. A copy of the said judgment was filed before the Labour Court as Ex.P.1. One of the worker had examined himself as P.W.1. On the side of the TANSI one Ragupathywas examined as R.W.1. THE workmen also filed 22 documents and they were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On the side of the management, 29 documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.R.1 to R.29. THE Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that those who are directly appointed by TANSI are not eligible for pension. But, however, in that view of the matter, dismissed the Claim Petitions in respect of C.P.Nos.320, 321 and 328 of 2000 and held they are not entitled for pension. In respect of other Claim Petitions, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that they entered into service before 1965, when there was a deployment and subsequently their service was absorbed by TANSI. THErefore, since they have no option to go on voluntary to the Government of India company, they are eligible for pension and the Government Order issued in this regard denying pension for such of those involuntary transferred employees vide G.O.Ms.No.284, Finance Department dated 31.3.1980 was set aside by this Court as per Ex.P.1.

(3.) THE delay in moving this Court is sought to be explained in paragraph 11 of the affidavit, which is as follows: