K THINAKARAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petitions is for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, after calling for the concerned records from the file of the first respondent/labour Court pertaining to the proceedings in C. P. No. 155 of 1992 (in W. P. No. 10832 of 1996) and C. P. No. 135 of 1992 (in W. P. No. 10833 of 1996), quash the order dated 8. 12. 1994 and consequently direct the second respondent to pay the amounts as claimed in the Claim Petitions filed by the petitioners together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum calculated from the date of claim till the date of payment and award costs.

(2.) THE petitioners herein were working in the second respondent/management. A settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was reached before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on 8. 6. 1983 between the second respondent/management and various Trade Unions representing the employees, including the Union of the petitioners. The settlement was related to the introduction of incentive scheme for cargo handling operation in the Tuticorin Port. As per Clause 15 of the said settlement, incentive earnings for each workers should be calculated as per the stipulations and calculations had to be made on the basis of the least basic wages of a shore worker. Another settlement dated 11. 4. 1984 was arrived at between the Government of India represented by Ministry of Shipping and Transport and four major Trade Union Federations of the Port and Dock Workers, which was regarding the wage revision of the workers. According to the petitioners, the wages as fixed by the settlement was also implemented in respect of the employees of the second respondent also. However, the settlement relating to incentive earnings was not taken into account, though Clause 23 of the settlement dated 11. 4. 1984 provides categorically.

(3.) ONE other settlement dated 12. 6. 1989 was arrived between the Management and the Unions representing the Port and Dock Workers regarding the issue of wage revision and liberalisation of terms and conditions of employment. It is stated that the second respondent/management denied their right accrued under the settlements. The petitioners filed claim petitions before the Labour Court at Madurai under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was later transferred to Labour Court, Tirunelveli along with other similar claim petition of other Union and re-numbered as C. P. Nos. 155 of 1992 and 135 of 1992.