S SRINIVASAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.6664 of 2013 dated 19.3.2013, wherein the appellant herein has prayed for quashing the award dated 9.8.2001 made in Complaint No.17 of 1999 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai.

(2.) The second respondent herein filed a Complaint No.17 of 1999 in I.D.No.108 of 1993 before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against four companies, i.e., respondents 2 to 5 in the industrial dispute, contending that the management laid-off the workers from 1.8.1999 to 23.8.1999 and declared an illegal lock-out on 2.11.1999 and the same amounts to offence punishable under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 9.8.2001 holding that the lay-off from 1.8.1999 to 23.8.1999 and lock-out from 2.11.1999 are illegal and the Industrial Tribunal directed the four companies, who were respondents 2 to 5 before the Industrial Tribunal, to reinstate all the workers, with effect from 2.11.1999 and pay back wages.

(3.) The said award of the Industrial Tribunal having not been complied with/implemented, the second respondent Union filed W.P.No.14028 of 2002 before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing implementation of the award dated 9.8.2001. The appellant herein, who was former Managing Director of the 4th respondent Company got himself impleaded as sixth respondent in the said writ petition, though he was not a party before the Industrial Tribunal. On 23.12.2003 this Court allowed the said writ petition with a direction to respondents to implement the award of the Tribunal within a period of three months. It was pointed out in the order that the award has not been challenged by any of the respondents, including the appellant herein, who was impleaded as party in the writ petition. Following the said order the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(D)No.58 Labour and Employment, dated 27.1.2004 and directed the District Collector to recover the amounts payable to 132 workers, as if the amounts were arrears of land revenue.