JAGANATHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of 52 workmen of erstwhile R.M.T Drills (P) Ltd., who were dismissed from service on 12.06.1975, 43 persons chose to prefer industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.286 to 322 of 2004 and 483 and 485 of 2004 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore invoking Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rest of the workmen had passed away by the time the above said Industrial Disputes came to be filed. Three other workmen also raised similar industrial disputes before the Labour Court in ID Nos. 486, 487 and 488 of 2004. By a common award dated 29.08.2006, the learned Presiding Officer, Coimbatore chose to dismiss all the Industrial Disputes holding that they were not competent as the industrial disputes were not raised complying with the conditions found in Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The petitioners in I.D.Nos.486, 487 and 488 of 2004 have not chosen to challenge the award. The petitioners in I.D.Nos.286 to 322 of 2004 and 483 and 485 of 2004 alone have chosen to challenge the award by filing the present writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the said award of the Labour Court dated 29.08.2006 in the above industrial disputes and direct the second respondent management to reinstate the petitioners in service with backwages from 01.04.2002 and all other attendant benefits. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Coimbatore chose to dismiss the I.Ds on the following grounds:

(3.) Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though the prayer in the petition raising the industrial disputes before the Labour Court has been couched in such terms that the petitioners should be given employment with continuity of service and other benefits from 01.04.2002, as per clause 3 of the settlement dated 17.08.2001 arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a prayer, in effect, was only against the dismissal and non-employment of the petitioners and that hence, the Labour Court ought not to have rejected the Industrial Disputes as industrial disputes raised for implementation of the clauses of Section 18(1) of the Settlement. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question of maintainability was not raised before the Labour Court and hence, the Labour Court ought not to have rejected the Industrial Disputes holding them to be not maintainable under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.