S NARASIMHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first writ petition is filed by the management of Wood Briar Estate Ltd., challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, Coimbtore in I.D.No.197 of 1996, dated 22.11.1999. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent Workman with continuity of service and 40% of backwages with effect from 25.3.1996 together with cost of Rs.250/-. The writ petition was admitted on 19.4.2000. Pending the writ petition, this court directed the petitioner management to comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act by paying last drawn wages to the second respondent workman with effect from 1.5.2000. A further direction was given to deposit the arrears of wages as awarded by the Labour court within 12 weeks. By an order, dated 09.11.2000, when an application for time extension came, the time was extended. It was ordered that the workman is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount and remaining 50% should be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalised bank. The interest accrued interest from such deposit was also directed to be paid on quarterly basis. Subsequently when the matter came up on 11.12.2003, this court recorded that the management has deposited Rs.80000/- on 30.11.2000, but not within the time limited prescribed by the court. However, the miscellaneous petition was closed with liberty to workman to take out an appropriate application. Subsequently, on an application being taken by the workman to fix an early date, the main writ petition was directed to be posted.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the workman has come forward to file a writ petition being W.P.No.21570 of 2009, challenging the very same Award insofar as it denied 60% of backwages. The writ petition was admitted and directed to be posted along with the earlier writ petition. The interim application for payment of 50% of backwages was rejected by this court. Subsequently, the second respondent workman removed his counsel and expressed his intention to appear as party in person.

(3.) In view of the interconnectivity, both the writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as management and workman as the case may be in the respective writ petitions. This court is not inclined to entertain the second writ petition, which was filed after nine years after the Award even though there were several opportunities given for the workman to challenge the denial of backwages of 60%. Hence on the short ground of delay, the writ petition filed by the workman is liable to be rejected.