MANAGEMENT OF MAYA APPLIANCES LIMITED OLD MAHABALIPURAM ROAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Management in this writ petition. THEy have challenged an Award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.680 of 2000. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court found that the non-employment of the second respondent workman was unjustified and he was entitled for re-instatement with continuity of service, full backwages and other attendant benefits. It is this impugned Award dated 31.05.2006 is the subject matter of the writ petition.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission on 11.01.2007, this Court admitted the writ petition and also recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the Management that they had already deposited the backwages from 19.05.2000 to till August 2005 pursuant to the order of this Court earlier. An interim stay was also granted on the same day. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute on 24.04.2007 with liberty to the workman to seek for modification. Accordingly, the workman filed an application in M.P.No.1 of 2008 to vacate the interim stay and that application was directed to be posted on top of the list on 30.04.2008. For reasons best known, the matter was not listed. The Workman also filed an application in M.P.No.2 of 2008 seeking for direction to pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B of the I.D.Act. In that application, a direction was given to the Management to pay the last drawn salary from the date of filing of the writ petition viz., 10.01.2007. The arrears of last drawn wages from 10.01.2007 till April 2008 was also directed to be paid within four weeks. It is agreed that the said order has been complied with by the Management.

(3.) THE Labour court registered the dispute as I.D.No.680 of 2000 and ordered notice to the petitioner Management. THE petitioner Management had filed a counter statement disputing the maintainability of the dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act as according to them, there was no industrial dispute in the eye of law and they were not responsible for any non-employment. Despite being offered an alternative employment in another company, it was the workman who remained absent.