D KOTTEESWARA RAO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in I.D. Nos. 77/2001, 642/2001, 643/ 2001, 644/2001 and 647/2001, dated 20.2.2004 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. The writ petitioners herein were claimants before the first respondent raising dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) between the management of Standard Chartered Bank and their workmen. The petitioners who are claimants before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court raised the dispute against the second respondent/management and as per the award, the first respondent held that the petitioners herein are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them under the Industrial Disputes Act. Aggrieved by which, separate writ petitions have been filed by them, challenging the orders passed by the first respondent herein.

(2.) Mr. K. Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that without proper application of judicial mind, based on the materials available on record, the impugned common award has been passed by the first respondent. It is further contended that the Court below has not gone into the factual aspect, as to why Brayan D'Souza needed a visit to the Telex Room of the Standard Chartered Bank on the date of occurrence, what had been the transaction taken place between the injured complainant and others, prior to the occur rence, especially with Srinivasa Sha, an employee of the Bank, prior to the occurrence and also the allegation raised by the person injured in the occurrence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in all the writ petitions submitted that the purpose of the visit of the aforesaid Brayan D'Souza and Sylvester Jerry on the date of occurrence during office hours within the campus of the Bank, at the prohibited area was not stated by the management, however, they were threatening the Bank employees with rowdy elements and the afore said fact was silently sidetracked, ignored and ultimately suppressed by the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has not discussed anything in the award about the actual occurrence; hence, the writ petitions have been filed challenging the common award of dismissing the claim of the petitioners.

(3.) It was further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first respondent had failed to see that there was no corroboration to establish the time of the incident and also failed to discuss the con tents of the complaint, admission of the alleged victims as inpatient and the first respondent has not considered the issue as to who was Sylvester Jerry and what business he had got with the standard chartered Bank in the prohibited area without signing the visitors book and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid facts would am ply prove the goondaism act of the bank against its own employees with regard to the credit card collection matters in the occurrence.