LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-396

MANAGEMENT MALAYSIAN AIRLINES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On June 11, 2007
MANAGEMENT, MALAYSIAN AIRLINES Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of Malaysian Airlines at Chennai has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the award of the Labour Court, seeking to call for the records on the file of the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai, first respondent herein, relating to I.D.No.579 of 1993 and to quash the award, dated 30.01.2004, made therein.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the second respondent/workman filed an application under Section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") in I.D.No.579 of 1993, claiming that he was employed as a Traffic Assistant with effect from 04.07.1987 and the said workman was stopped from work on 07.04.1993 without any notice or compensation and that his non-employment was not justified.

(3.) EARLIER, the first respondent Labour Court passed an award, dated 22.08.1996, dismissing the application filed by the workman and the same was challenged by the second respondent/workman in W.P.No.1958 of 1997. This Court, by its order, dated 28.10.2003, set aside the award and passed the following direction: "The award impugned is set aside and the dispute is remitted back to the second respondent for holding a de nono enquiry as to the question relating to the justification of the non-employment of the petitioner. It is however made clear that the question that the petitioner was a workman of the first respondent is fully established and therefore the scope of any further enquiry by the second respondent should only be on the question as regards the justification of the non-employment. It is open for the first respondent to substantiate its stand in the counter filed before the second respondent namely that the petitioner was not in continuous service so as to attract compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or that his non-employment was otherwise justified."