THILAGAM G Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have come forward with this writ petition for a writ of certiorarfied mandamus to call for the records relating to I.D.Nos.180 to 188 of 1992 and to quash the common award dated March 24, 1994 passed by the first respondent and to direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioners herein with continuity of back wages and other benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioners are that the 2nd respondent-Management had 23 retail outlets for which the entire packing and distribution systems were done at the head office of the 2nd respondent herein. Ponni Supermarket is one of the retail outlets of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners were employed in the 2nd respondent management for a period of 7, 12, 8, 5, 10, 3, 7, 9 and 9 years respectively for a meagre wages of Rs.5 per day and were working continuously as the nature of work assigned to them was permanent. On April 12, 1989, the Inspector of Labour appointed under the Minimum Wages Act inspected the 2nd respondent's office and recorded the statement from the petitioners and others in respect of their salary and service conditions. Immediately on June 7, 1989, the 2nd respondent has orally terminated the services of the petitioners without assigning any reason knowing the fact that they have completed 480 days in first two years of their service. The petitioners were not given any compensation as stipulated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners have approached the Labour Commissioner (Conciliation), Salem under Section 2-A of the Act. During the conciliation the 2nd respondent Management had agreed to reinstate the petitioners, however, later the 2nd respondent strangely took a plea that the petitioners were not their employees, in the result, the conciliation became vain. Therefore, the petitioners approached the 1st respondent by filing separate I.Ds. and joint trial was conducted. However, the Labour Court dismissed their I.Ds. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with this common writ petition.

(3.) The case of the 2nd respondent is that altogether 17 persons have raised industrial dispute alleging that they were employed for pre-packing work in the Ponni Supermarket, which were contested by the 2nd respondent-Management before the Conciliation Officer by filing necessary reply. In the conciliation proceeding, the Secretary of the 2nd respondent has not signed any undertaking promising to reinstate the petitioners. Since the conciliation ended in failure, the petitioners have filed I.Ds. before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has rejected the claim of the petitioners. The averment that the Management has agreed to reinstate the petitioners is not true. The document namely Exhibit W-6 and W-8 were considered by the Labour Court and orders were passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners herein.