A LAKSHMIPATHY Vs. MANAGEMENT OF INDIA PISTONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the facts involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FOR better appreciation, the facts involved in one of the writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.26884 of 2010, are briefly stated hereunder:-

(3.) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submission, relied upon the judgments in the case of V.Paramasivam V. Management of Madras Rubber Factory and another reported in (2001) III LLJ 1021 Madras for the legal proposition that when the petitioner wanted an interim relief which would not only enable him to survive and but also help him to conduct the proceedings before the Labour Court, the non granting of interim relief till the disposal of the matter will seriously prejudice the petitioner who is already thrown out of employment. Further, elaborating his submission, the learned senior counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court another unreported judgment in W.A.No.437 of 2000 dated 24.01.2005 wherein, a Division Bench of this Court while upholding the order passed by the single judge, has observed that the learned single judge has arrived at a conclusion in respect of the relief, in which they were not able to find out any factual or legal inconsistency or infirmity i.e., the Division Bench has held that during the pendency of the main dispute before the Labour Court, it has got power to grant interim relief under Section 10(4) of the Act, provided the Labour Court is convinced of a strong prima facie case in favour of the workman to succeed in setting aside the order of dismissal. THE learned Senior counsel also relied upon another judgment of the Apex court reported in (1960) 1 SCR 476 in Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and others V. Hotel Workers' Union for the similar proposition to impress upon this court in granting the interim relief till the disposal of the I.D. by the Labour Court.