SITALAKSHMI MILLS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these five Writ Petitions, the petitioner is the same Textile Mill. They are aggrieved by the orders of the first respondent Labour Court in refusing to decide the preliminary issue with reference to the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management. Inspite of filing of an application by the petitioner Management, the Labour Court by an order dated 16. 12. 2005 in each of the dispute refused to decide the preliminary issue by stating that all the matters will be heard together and rejected the plea made by the petitioner Management to try the preliminary issue separately.

(2.) HEARD Mr. M. E. Elango, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. G. Ganeshan Kathirkaman, learned counsel appearing for the workmen and have perused the records.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that in all these writ petitions, the second respondent workmen filed a complaint under Section 33a of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, (for short I. D. Act. ). When a complaint was made under section 33a of the I. D. Act, the I. D. Act itself makes it clear that the Labour court should adjudicate a complaint, as if it was a dispute referred to under section 10 (1) of the I. D. Act. Section 33a (b) reads as follows:-