R M SUBRAMANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are workmen. Aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai in the Claim Petition Nos.41/1998, 1249/1997, 1254/1997, 42/1998, 1252/1997, 1253/997, 1255/1997 and 1224 of 1997 dated 29.2.2008, the present Writ Petitions were filed.

(2.) THE Writ Petitions were admitted on 16.10.2008 and 31.10.2008. Since in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners were successful for getting an exparte order, which was challenged by the contesting respondents before this Court and at the time of disposal of the Writ Petitions, this Court had directed the amounts to be deposited to the credit of various Claim Petitions. THE contesting respondents have also deposited the amount. THErefore, the petitioners in the second round of litigation have lost their case and convinced this Court that since they have a prima facie case, the amounts already in deposit could not be withdrawn by the contesting respondent. Hence, this Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Labour Court from permitting the contesting respondents to withdraw the amount. But, the interim injunction is still in force.

(3.) ON notice from the Labour Court, the counter statements were filed and the Commissioner of Panchayat Union took the stand that the Panchayats are separate entities and he cannot be described as an employer and they were wrongly joined as party and therefore no relief can be claimed against them and the Claim Petitions should be dismissed as against them. In respect of the Panchayats, the stand was that the Minimum Wage Notification is not applicable to the Pump Operator and their employment is only casual and they were working only one or two hours per day. The Panchayats, which were made as parties in these Claim Petitions were made ex parte.