COMMISSIONER Vs. P RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in all these Writ petitions, the commissioner, Salem Municipal Corporation, Salem , has come forward with the present Writ Petitions challenging the awards passed by the second respondent-Labour Court, Salem made in I. D. Nos. 268 to 274 of 1999 dated 10. 1. 2002 and for quashing the same.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner-Corporation, as put forth by them in these Writ Petitions, is as follows:- (a) THE first respondents-workmen were engaged by the petitioner-Corporation as N. M. R. on daily rate basis, while there was requirement of manpower for removing encroachments made within the Corporation land. THE first respondent-workmen were engaged only as and when there was requirement for carrying out some work. THE first respondents were engaged only after 1. 10. 1996. After completion of the work, the engagement of the first respondents-workmen were dispensed with. Thus, the first respondents-workmen were employed only as N. M. R. on daily wage basis and their employment was not governed by any Rules nor they were appointed in any sanctioned post of the petitioner-Corporation. (b) While that being so, the first respondents-workmen have filed petitions before the Labour Court , Salem under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act for their reinstatement into service. After receipt of notice in the said proceedings, the petitioner-Corporation has filed detailed counter affidavit negativing their claim and resisted the dispute. THE matter was adjourned on several occasions. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 10. 1. 2002, due to the transfer of official concerned attending the Court, there was no representation on behalf of the Corporation and the Labour Court has passed the awards allowing the claim of the workmen with a further direction directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate them with back wages. Challenging the said awards, the present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Corporation.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. S. Vaidyanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondents-workmen, contended as follows:- (a) The Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that there is a delay of one and half years in filing the Writ petitions. (b) The Labour Court has considered the plea of the workers and passed the awards on merits and the same are liable to be confirmed. (c) The petitioner-Corporation has not availed the opportunity before the Labour Court to establish its case and they cannot blame the Labour Court for passing orders on merits.