MANAGEMENT Vs. CHELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The President of Pallipatti Village Panchayat, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, has challenged the Award made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, fourth respondent, in I.D. No. 10 of 2006, dated 28.4.2006.

(2.) Short facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: Pallipatti Panchayat has appointed one P.M. Ethiraj as temporary Tank Operator on January 1, 1992. On the date of his appointment, he has given his Date of Birth as July 1, 1947 and the same was entered in service records. He was paid a sum of Rs. 60/-per month as consolidated pay, which was periodically extended. On the date of his retirement, i.e., June 30, 2005, he was paid a sum of Rs. 600/- as consolidated pay. Aggrieved by the oral termination, dated October 21, 2005, he preferred I.D. No. 10 of 2006, before the Labour Court, Salem, for reinstatement with backwages and other attendant benefits. Unfortunately, the then President of the Panchayat did not follow the Court case, which resulted in an ex parte Award, dated April 28, 2006, directing reinstatement of late P.M. Ethiraj with continuity of service and backwages from July 1, 2005 with other attendant benefits. A cost of Rs. 250/- was also awarded. The said individual died on December 3, 2006. After his demise, legal heirs,: respondents 1 to 3 herein, filed CP. No. 48 of 2007, on the file of the Labour Court, praying for backwages from July 1, 2005 to November 30, 2006 and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards family insurance. Only on receipt of the said: notice in the C.P., the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the above I.D. Therefore, he filed a petition to set aside the ex parte award and an application under Section 34(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, to condone the delay of: 470 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte Award. The said delay excuse petition is dismissed on the ground that the Award has already been published under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, it becomes final. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.

(3.) Taking this Court through the ex parte Award in I.D. No. 10 of 2006, dated April 28, 2006, Mr. K. Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, fourth respondent, without any discussion of the evidence produced by the deceased employee, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner in service and backwages.