MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the Management of International Trading Company, challenging the common Award passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in I.D. Nos. 205 to 210/2005 dated June 21, 2007. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court allowed the industrial disputes and held that the workmen are entitled to claim re-employment, with continuity of service from February 1997 and they are also entitled to claim 50% of backwages from April 2005. The writ petition was admitted on October 24, 2007. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, when vacate stay application was filed, this Court made the stay absolute on December 10, 2008. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workmen were reinstated. But however, they were not paid wages on par with the current rate of wages paid to other employees. Therefore, by an order dated December 10, 2008, this Court directed the Management to pay the difference of salary to the contesting respondents from September 17, 2007 and continue to pay salary from December 2008 as was paid to one N. Kuppan. The arrears of difference in pay was also directed to pay within a period of four weeks.

(2.) Subsequently, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat for resolving the dispute. But as there was no possibility of settlement, the matter was referred back to this Court for dismissal on merits.

(3.) The petitioner was running a leather industry in North Arcot District. Due to the pollution created by the tanneries, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Supreme Court by Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum. The Supreme Court passed orders from time to time. Subsequently, by an interim order dated September 8, 1993, the Supreme Court found that some of the tanneries including the petitioner's tannery have not installed pollution control device and therefore, they were ordered to be closed with immediate effect. The District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police, Vellore District were directed to enforce the order. It was pursuant to the direction issued by the Supreme Court, the petitioner Company was made to stop production.