M. PONNUSAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five writ petitions are arising out of the common award dated 16.2.2005, given by the first respondent/Labour Court. Since the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the said award of the first respondent and the prayer herein are also one and the same, these writ petitions were grouped together and heard as a batch of petitions and being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The common factors of all these cases, as culled out from the respective affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, are as follows:

(3.) Mr. S. Ayyadurai, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, even though the second respondent Management denied the appointment as well as employment of the petitioners at the canteens run by the second respondent/Management at various places (as stated supra), on evidence, the first respondent/Labour Court found that these petitioners had been working at the canteens run by the second respondent/Management and therefore, the abrupt termination or dispensing with the services of the petitioners, without making them permanent, was totally opposing to the provisions of the ID Act. The learned counsel would further submit that the abrupt termination/retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of ID Act without following the mandatory procedure under section 25 F and 25 N of the ID Act, is not only unlawful but also unjustifiable and therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to get reinstatement with full back wages.