R.KARUNAKARAN Vs. RANGASAMY MOTOR SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2014, passed in C.P.No.177 of 2013.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was employed as a driver by the 1st respondent Management. The writ petitioner was terminated from service without following the procedures and therefore, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.98 of 2005. The industrial dispute was disposed of by order dated 07.06.2007, by passing an ex-parte award. The 1st respondent Management filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.289 of 2008 in I.D.No.98 of 2005 to set aside the ex-parte award dated 07.06.2007, with a condone delay petition to condone the delay of 416 days in filing the interlocutory application. The Labour Court by order dated 21.05.2009, dismissed the condone delay petition. Challenging the ex-parte award dated 07.06.2007 as well as the order dated 21.05.2009, the 1st respondent Management filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.10623 and 10624 of 2009, wherein this Court has passed an order on 22.06.2010, and the operative portion of the order is as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relying on the directions given by this Court in the said writ petitions, contended that the order passed by this Court dated 22.06.2010, was flouted by the Management and the writ petitioner was not permitted to report for duty. The writ petitioner made several representations and approached the Management in person. In spite of his efforts, as well as the promise given by the Management, he was not permitted to join duty. Under those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court. The Labour Court erroneously rejected the claim petition on the ground that the writ petitioner ought to have filed a contempt petition in respect of non-implementation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.10623 and 10624 of 2009.