TAMLINAD TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LTD Vs. MARIAPPAN M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions for the relief of certiorari are filed by the management and the onion or workers respectively under Article 221 of the Constitution under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE Tamilnadu Transports, Coimbatore (Private), Ltd. , the management in these cases, claim to have suffered loss in their earnings, when the number of permits for bases which they were enjoying was reduced. Thereupon they took steps to retrench certain workers whom they found to be surplus. By a notice Ex. M. 10 which was published in accordance with Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes Rules they prepared a list of parsons proposed to be retrenched mentioning 5 March 1964 as the data of retrenchment. Individual notices were also sent to the workers proposed to' be retrenched wherein they ware told that they could go over to the office of the management on 7 March 1964 to collect the arrears of salary and other amounts which would be due to them under the rules as a consequence of the retrenchment. Several workers were retrenched in this way. We are now concerned in these writ petitions only with three parsons, namely. (1) Sendurvel, (2) Perumal, and (3) Guruswami. The union contended that there was really no need for the retrenchment, that the retrenchment amounted to victimization and that the retrenchment was not in accordance with the law. At their instance, the State Government referred to the labour court, Coimbatore, for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the following points:

(3.) IN respect of the workers K. R. Perumal and K. Guruswami the labour court found that their non-employment was justified, that they had been properly retrenched and that on that account they were not entitled to any relief. The labour union is attacking this finding of the labour court in Writ Petition No. 3354 of 1965.