GANESAN G Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the common award passed by the first respondent in Industrial Disputes Nos. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 97 of 1992, dated May 31, 1993 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part II, Section 2, dated September 1, 1993 in so far as that portion of the award of the first respondent negativating the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) The petitioners joined the service of the second respondent-mill on April 17, 1973. When the second respondent terminated the services of the three employees on August 18, 1985, the employees of the second respondent-mill went on strike from August 19, 1985. The strike ended on December 2, 1985 as per the advice of the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras. Charge-memos were issued to all the 17 employees including the petitioners on August 21, 1985 and September 28, 1985 and were suspended as per Clauses 19(b), 19(c) and 19(d) of the Standing Orders. As per the above charges, the petitioners along with 10 other employees threatened and intimidated loyal workmen from entering the factory and instigated them to participate in the strike. The Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madras in his order, dated November 28,1985, advised the second respondent to revoke the order of suspension in respect of the 10 workmen and permit them to resume work. In the same order the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour also advised that the petitioners who were also placed under suspension will be under suspension pending enquiry and that the second respondent was entitled to proceed with the enquiry as against the petitioners alone. After a detailed enquiry, the petitioners were dismissed from service by: the second respondent by order, dated May 12, 1986. The petitioners raised industrial dispute in Industrial Disputes Nos. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 97 of 1992 before the first respondent. The first respondent by a common award, dated May 31, 1993, negativated the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement in service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said portion of the award, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri S. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, challenged the award on the following grounds namely: