LALITHA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the Labour Court, Cuddalore, in I.A.No. 76 of 2007 in C.P.No.4 of 2004 dated 5.1.2008 and direct the Labour Court to decide I.A.No.76 of 2007 on merits.

(2.) THE petitioners are legal heirs of one late Ramasamy. THE second respondent who is the wife of late Kuppuswamy filed a Petition under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in C.P.No.4 of 2007 for computation of wages payable to her late husband to the tune of Rs.1,52,060/-. THE case of the claimant was that her husband joined twenty years ago in the service of Ramasamy as Tractor Cleaner and after five years of service he was made as a Tractor Driver and was discharging his duties to the fullest satisfaction of his employer. THE driving licence of late Kuppuswamy was kept by Ramasamy and since the said Ramasamy died during May 2003, the claimant through his counsel sent a legal notice to the petitioners herein on 29.5.2003 claiming wages. THE petitioners sent a reply notice on 14.6.2003 through their Lawyer. In the above circumstances, the Computation Petition was filed by the second respondent to compute the wages.

(3.) THE second respondent resisted the Application by filing a counter inter alia contending that the petitioners despite being aware of the proceedings did not appear for nearly 12 adjournments and therefore the Labour Court sent a final notice fixing the date of hearing as 6.2.2004 and despite receipt of the notice indicating the date of hearing, they were grossly negligent and did not appear before the Court. Only, thereafter the speaking order was passed by the Labour Court, the Execution Proceedings were pending for 2 - years and to deny the knowledge of Execution Proceedings is absolute falsehood and therefore the second respondent prayed that the discretion of the Court should not be exercised in favour of the petitioners. THE Labour Court by the impugned order dated 5.1.2008 dismissed I.A.No.76 of 2007 and challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.