DAEJUNG MOPARATS P. LTD. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V.Sajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.C.Karlmarx, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent and by consent, these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) In these Writ Petitions, the challenge by the petitioner Management is to orders passed by the third Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.A.27 of 2014 in I.D.NO.205 of 2009, I.A.No.29 of 2014 in I.D.No.206 of 2009, I.A.31 of 2014 in I.D.No.207 of 2009, I.A.No.33 of 2014 in I.D.No.208 of 2009, I.A.No.35 of 2014 in I.D.No.209 of 2009, I.A.No.37 of 2014 in I.D.No.210 of 2009, I.A.No.39 of 2014 in I.D.No.211 of 2009, I.A.No.42 of 2014 i I.D.No.212 of 2009 and I.A.No.43 of 2014 in I.D.No.213 of 2009 respectively, dated 28.8.2015. The said applications were filed by the petitioner Management to condone the delay of 1198 days in filing petitions to set aside the exparte award passed by the Labour Court dated 12.7.2010. The 2nd respondent raised the dispute on behalf of 9 workmen challenging their non employment and seeking for reinstating them in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(3.) The case of the petitioner management was that on account of the calous attitude of the respondent workmen, the production level of the company had gone very low and the company could not meet the supply orders and during the relevant time i.e., during 2009, the Managing Director R.K.Sharma had resigned and he had not informed his successor about the exparte order and no records were found by the Management and therefore the Management contended that the delay has occurred in filing the petition to set aside the exparte award and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but for the reasons set out in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition.