V MUTHU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE employees of the second respondent-Village Panchayats, raised the question as to whether the first respondent-Labour Court can reject the claim of the petitioners-employees seeking for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay alone, without considering the merits of the case, vide impugned orders dated 11.6.2008 in C.P.Nos.23 and 2 of 2007, respectively, which have been called in question, seeking to quash the same and also to direct the first respondent-Labour Court to compute the claim petitions (computation petitions) without following the period of limitation.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are as follows:

(3.) MR.K.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-employees, in his submissions, strenuously contended that the impugned orders passed by the first respondent-Labour Court are contrary to the object of the provisions of the ID Act, and particularly, when the claim under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act is made, it is incumbent upon the first respondent-Labour Court to compute the wages due under the settlement or award, if the same are not paid by the employer to the employee for a long time, and when the employer suffers no loss, the Court has to compute the amounts due under wages and pass an award, but on the contrary, in the present case, the first respondent-Labour Court dismissed the claim petitions on the sole ground of delay, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.