S MOHAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all the three writ petitions, are the employees of the second respondent company. THE second respondent is the private owned finance company. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.7.2003 passed by the second respondent Management. By the impugned order, the second respondent informed the petitioners that the engagement of the petitioners was purely temporary and extended their engagement by further period of 2 months and during the said period, the petitioners have been paid additional compensatory allowance.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners was that the said action taken by the second respondent was illegal and amounting to unfair labour practices as per Item 7 of Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act. THE dispute relating to minimum wages is pending before the first respondent and if any transfer is made by the second respondent, it will defeat their right to get minimum wages. In this regard, a reference was also made in the judgement of the Division Bench in T.Chandrasekaran v. the Committee of Management of Pachaiyappa's Trust and others in 1989-I-LLJ-294.

(3.) HOWEVER, when the matter came up on 25.4.2011, Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners informed that he is no longer appeared for the petitioners as the petitioners have taken away the bundles along with change of vakalat without any further instructions. Hence, this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioners. Accordingly, the name of the petitioners appear in the cause list today.