G SELVARAJ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are workmen employed by the second respondent/textiles. THEy had filed claim petitions before the first respondent/Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.Nos.83 to 85, 87 to 95, and 97 to 100 of 2007 claiming wages for the period of unemployment. THEir claim was based upon the fact that they were terminated from service while a dispute was pending before the first respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.99 of 2004. THE said industrial dispute relates to whether the action of the second respondent/Management in not providing employment to the workmen even though they are ready and willing to work and not operating the mill with effect from 18.5.2003 is justified and if not, what relief they are entitled to.

(2.) EVEN while the dispute was pending, the petitioners were terminated from service by order dated 26.5.2006. The dismissal was preceded by a domestic enquiry. The claim of the petitioners was that since no approval was obtained from the first respondent/Labour Court in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, their termination is void ab initio and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma, [2002] 2 SCC 244, they are entitled to wages. The Labour Court numbered their petitions and assigned various claim petition numbers and notice was ordered to the second respondent.

(3.) THE Labour Court, on an analysis of the evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the premises under which the claim petitions are filed is not valid. Even though the petitioners can take advantage of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank case, supra, there is no occasion for applying the principle laid down therein, since the second respondent themselves have filed approval petitions and even today it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same are pending. It is only in cases where the approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not filed, the question of termination becoming void ab initio would arise.