A V DAKSHINAMURTHY Vs. ASSISTANT MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in W.P. No. 6311 of 2006 is the Food Corporation of India, represented by its Senior Regional manager, Chennai. That writ petition was filed challenging the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai in I.D. No. 309 of 2004, dated 22.3.2005. By the impugned award, the Tribunal held that the members of the first Respondent/Trade Union are entitled to get 21 days minimum guaranteed wages from 1.11.2001, the date on which they gave option to perform all works as per the settlement deed dated 4.7.1988. That writ petition was admitted on 6.3.2006. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay subject to payment of 50% of the award amount within eight weeks, failing which the stay was liable to be vacated.

(2.) Even when that writ petition was pending, one worker by name A.V.Dakshinamurthy filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 3964 of 2007 seeking a direction to the Respondent/Food Corporation of India to pay 21 days salary towards minimum guaranteed wage right from 1.3.1976. In that writ petition, he claimed that as against his termination during November, 1978, he raised a dispute in I.D. No. 17 of 1981 and the Tribunal, by award dated 9.11.1981, directed his reinstatement with full back-wages. Subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, he was restored to duty on 16.2.1994 and his back-wages were also paid. But still he was working only as a worker and he was not paid the minimum wages and therefore, he is entitled to have 21 days salary every month right from 1.3.1976. When that writ petition came up on 17.4.2007, the same was admitted and directed to be heard along with the earlier writ petition. In that writ petition, the Respondent/Food Corporation of India has filed a counter affidavit dated 30.6.2007.

(3.) It was long after the first writ petition filed by the Food Corporation of India, the Trade Union, which raised the industrial dispute, filed a cross writ petition (W.P. No. 15869 of 2009) in the year 2009 challenging that portion of the award wherein and by which the relief was restricted for the payment of guaranteed wages of 21 days from 1.11.2001 and not from 4.7.1988. In that writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 10.8.2009 and it was directed to be heard along with the previous writ petition. However, they have not explained as to why they had taken more than three years in moving this Court challenging the said award.