T. M. RAMAMOORTHY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the correctness of the Common Order dated 10.07.2012 made in W.P.Nos.9776 and 11692 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that he was working as Operator in Cubical Gear Multi Motor Circular Centre (CGMMCC) in the respondent company as casual labour during the year 1975. At that time, there was a general agitation by the workers of the respondent company demanding to confirm their employment and there was a conciliation between the company and the employees which ended in failure. Thereafter, the appellant herein and the other workers raised an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal which passed an award directing the respondent Management to employ the workers with back wages. Totally, there were 181 workers, out of whom the Industrial Tribunal directed to reinstate 131 employees with back wages and 50 without back wages. Aggrieved by the award, the respondent Management by way of appeal came before this Court unsuccessfully and after the dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.A.No.1235/1983 was also filed and the same was allowed by setting aside the order made in the Writ Petition. Thereafter, the Labour Union took up the matter to the Apex Court in C.A.Nos.596 and 597/2986. Finally, the Apex Court directed the respondent Management to allow the appellant and other workers to rejoin the company with continuity of service by its judgment dated 11.01.1990. The further case of the appellant is that after his reinstatement in the respondent Management, he sought for promotion and when the same was denied, he raised an industrial dispute.

(3.) In the industrial dispute raised by the appellant herein, the learned Additional Labour Court No.I, Chennai, has held that when the question of promotion has arisen, after the rejection of his claim by the Management, the appellant has to approach the Conciliation Officer and only after the failure report filed by the Conciliation Officer, if any, the appellant should have approached the Labour Court which he has not done. But, all of a sudden, he has approached the Additional Labour Court No.I, Chennai, on the basis of the observation given in the order passed by this Court in CRP.No.3680/2000, that too, he raised the Industrial Dispute only under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court has also in paragraph 10 of its award made it clear that Section 2A is very clear that the workman in case of dismissal has to first approach initially conciliation proceedings and if no settlement is arrived before the Conciliation Officer and on the failure report by the Conciliation Officer, then only, he has to approach the Labour Court. But, without even following any of these procedure required to be complied with, the appellant has wrongly approached the Labour Court. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Industrial Dispute is not at all maintainable under Section 2A of the Act and dismissed the same. This award was also confirmed by the learned Single Judge. As against which, the present Appeals have been filed.