COMMISSIONER, RAJAPALAYAM MUNICIPALITY RAJAPALAYAM, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MADURAI AND S ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these 66 writ petitions, the petitioner is the Commissioner representing the Rajapalayam Municipality. Aggrieved by the common Award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai, dated 10.3.2011 in various industrial disputes raised by the contesting respondents, the present writ petitions came to be filed. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court had exercised its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the discharge orders given by the petitioner. It directed the Municipality to reinstate the contesting respondents with continuity of service. But with reference to the backwages, the Labour Court held that the workers were not entitled for any backwages, though no reasons were assigned. Since the workmen have not challenged that portion of the Award denying the backwages, this court is not going into that issue in these writ petitions.

(2.) In respect of the industrial disputes raised by similarly placed workmen against the very same order of discharge, a common Award was passed on 7.10.2008 in I.D.No.38 of 2003 and batch cases directing reinstatement with backwages. They were also challenged by the same municipality in W.P.(MD)Nos. 1664 of 2009 to 1674 of 2009, which were filed by a different counsel. Those writ petitions were dismissed by a detailed order on 28.10.2011 and that common Award was confirmed. It was at that stage, the counsel appearing for the workmen informed this Court that the present writ petitions filed subsequently by the Municipality were pending. Hence, this Court had directed those writ petitions to be posted on 29.10.2011 for disposal. Accordingly, the present matters were listed for hearing on 29.10.2011.

(3.) However, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these batch of cases sought for time stating that the matters are coming for the first time. Though the issues were covered by the earlier order, dated 28.10.2011, this court in order to give one more opportunity, posted the matter for final disposal today (31.10.2011). Today when the mater came up, further time extension was sought for. This court was not inclined to grant the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of term appointment and the workmen are not eligible for any relief. It was also broadly contended on the basis of the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions.