M RAMANATHAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short CGIT), Chennai made in I.D.No.88 of 2006, dated 06.12.2007 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to make payment of full backwages and all attendant benefits including terminal benefits. By the impugned Award, the labour court held that the removal of the petitioner was legal and justified and he was not entitled for any relief.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 26.6.2008. On notice, the first respondent entered appearance. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 27.2.1971. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, i.e., the first respondent herein. The appeal was rejected on 08.03.1971. The petitioner thereafter sent an appeal to the Government of India and the same was rejected on 21.2.1972. He subsequently had raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Labour Department. The petitioner did not explain as to why he took more than 25 years for raising the dispute except by stating that he was making representations. On the report of failure sent to the Central Government, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by their order dated 16.2.1999 had referred the dispute for adjudication by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal took up the dispute as I.D.No.40 of 1999 and issued notice to both parties. The petitioner filed a claim statement during May, 1999. On notice, the first respondent had filed a counter statement during March, 2000. Thereafter, the evidence was let in. The Industrial Tribunal by an Award dated 31.1.2001 held that the removal of the petitioner was justified and he was not entitled for any relief.

(3.) THOUGH, in the counter statement in paragraph 22, it was contended that since the removal took place in the year 1972 and the dispute raised after 25 years was not maintainable, the Tribunal did not go into the said issue for reasons best known.