SALEM URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. N.DHANASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Shivakumaran. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. S. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 14 and Mr. V. Ananthakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 15 to 18. The petitioner is the Management of the Salem Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the challenge is to an order passed by the Labour Court, Salem in C.P. No. 581 of 1991 dated 6.8.2002. The respondents 1 to 8 were the petitioners before the Labour Court in C.P. No. 581 of 1991. The said Petition was filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act) to compute the difference of salary payable to each of the respondents for the period from 6.10.1983 to 30.11.1997, being a total sum of Rs. 6,73,087/-.

(2.) The Claim petition was resisted by the petitioner by filing a counter statement as well as the additional counter. The Labour Court by an order dated 6.8.2002, computed the claim made by the respondents 1 to 8 herein and passed an order in their favour. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The first ground of challenge is by contending that the Labour Court in its order stated that the petitioner Bank did not produce any oral or documentary evidence, but it is the case of the petitioner that seven documents were filed along with i. A. No. 581 of 1997, and elaborate arguments were advanced, yet the Labour Court failed to mark those documents nor dealt with the arguments advanced by the petitioner herein. The second ground of attack is by contending that the respondents 1 to 8 are guilty of suppression of material facts before the Labour Court and failed to bring to the notice of the Court that they had earlier filed a writ petition which was dismissed and the writ appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed; that at no point of time, they had discharged their duty in the promoted post and that the order which they sought to rely upon i.e. the order of the Special Officer dated 14.7.1994, had been initially kept in abeyance by proceedings dated 20.7.1995 and subsequently cancelled by proceedings dated 3.8.1999. That the respondents 1 to 8 have not challenged the order dated 23.8.1995 which was passed before the cancellation of the order dated 14.7.1994. Further, it is stated that the respondents 1 to 8 did not hold the post and no right will accrue in their favour.