THE PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL Vs. P. THANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a very unfortunate case and for wrong reasons, the parties are before this Court. The petitioner is Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Kattobomman, Vijayanarayanam, Nanguneri Taluk, represented by its Principal. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the award made in I.D. No. 5 of 2011 dated 06.06.2011. By the impugned award, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, after examining the first respondent and marking exhibits WW1 to WW6 and having already set the petitioner ex parte, found that the reference was to be answered in favour of the first respondent. Therefore, it observed that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman was not legal and justified and she was entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service vide award dated 06.06.2011. Challenging the said award, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 20.03.2012, this Court directed the petitioner to serve notice on the counsel who appeared for the first respondent before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accordingly, notice was issued and Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appears for the first respondent and he expressed willingness to take notice on her behalf.

(3.) THE second respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 8587 of 2009, challenging the order declining to refer the dispute. This Court, by an order dated 18.10.2010, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Central Government to refer the dispute. Pursuant to the direction, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, by its order dated 22.12.2010, referred the dispute for adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court as to whether the action of the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vijayanarayanam, Nanguneri Taluk, in not considering the reinstatement with back wages to the workman P. Thangam from 06.03.1996 is legal and justified. After the receipt of notice of Industrial Dispute, the Tribunal has numbered it as I.D. No. 5 of 2011 and issued notice to both parties. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not make effective arrangements to represent themselves before the Tribunal and there were as many as six adjournments. Though the person appearing for the School mentioned before the Tribunal that they have engaged a counsel from Chennai, no Vakalat was filed and hence, they were set ex parte. The very same Tribunal, thereafter, found that even though the first respondent was not present, a claim statement was filed and passed an award on 20.04.2011 dismissing the Industrial Dispute and held that the first respondent was not entitled for any relief. In paragraph No. 5 of the award dated 20.04.2011, the Tribunal has observed as follows: