WORKMEN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P.No.26083/2009 the petitioner is one G.Jayapalan, General Secretary of Rane Brake Linings Employees Union. He has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to set aside the award dated 11.7.2008 made in I.D.No.10/2008.

(2.) IT is seen from the award that the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal, Chennai dismissed the dispute for want of prosecution by the workmen. The State Government by G.O.(D).No.886, Labour and Employment Department, dated 28.12.2007 referred the dispute raised by the workmen regarding their service conditions including confirmation of temporary workers, permanency of the canteen workers, revision of Dearness Allowance, revision of scale of pay, service weightage, revision of other allowances, linking the production incentive along with the wages, performance incentive, production incentive, supply of uniform, revision of stitching charges and supply of footwear, supply of food allowances on the days when the canteens were not functioning, supply of towels, supply of soaps and Horlicks, payment of lumpsum amount at the time of V.R.S., seniority fixation and employment for the legal heirs on compassionate ground. When the reference reached the Tribunal, the Tribunal took up the reference as I.D.No.10/2008 and issued notice, but neither the petitioner workmen nor the respondent management appeared before the Tribunal. This is perhaps due to the fact that the respondent management itself has filed W.P.No.5987/2008 before this Court challenging the order of reference on certain grounds. This Court admitted the said Writ Petition on 10.3.2008 and in M.P.No.1/2008 granted interim stay of the reference. Perhaps due to the fact that the Tribunal was not made a party in that Writ Petition and no memo was filed before the Tribunal regarding the stay granted, the parties would not have appeared before the Tribunal even after summons. That may be the reason why the Tribunal has dismissed the reference for want of appearance of parties. IT is not clear as to why the respondent management who also received the notice did not file any memo before the Tribunal along with the stay order granted by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner union filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) THEREFORE, W.P.No.26083/2009 stands allowed. The impugned order dated 11.7.2008 will stand set aside. The matter stands restored to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to issue notice to the parties concerned and to proceed with the reference.