Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :
12. 02.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.41081 of 2002 N.A.P.Premalatha .. Petitioner -vs- 01. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Trichy 02. A.Subramani 03. K.Subramaniam 04. P.Ponnusamy (Deceased) 05. N.I.Chidambaram (Deceased) 06. K.Arumugam 07. A.Kanniyappan 08. Seethammal 09. T.Dhandapani 10. G.Dhandapani 11. Balammal 12. A.Marimuthu 13. P.Arumugam 14. S.Karuppusamy (Deceased) 15. S.Ambikapathy 16. V.S.Palanichamy 17. V.Varadharajan 18. Muthammal 19. C.Palaniappan (Deceased) 20. N.Thulasi (Deceased) 21. S.S.Kandasamy (Deceased) 22. P.Palanichamy (Deceased) 23. M.Aarayee 24. C.Duraisamy 25. K.Kanagaraj 26. Kannammal 27. P.Chellammal (R27 substituted as L.R., in the place of deceased 4th respondent) 28. C.Chinnammal 29. Tamizselvi 30. Suriyakala 31. Thiru.Velmurugan (R28 to R31 substituted as L.Rs., in the place of deceased 5th respondent) 32. K.Lakshmi 33. Selvam K.Thangavlasu 34. Selvan K.Mariappan (R32 to R34 substituted as L.Rs., in the place of deceased 14th respondent) 35. Deivanai 36. Karunaiamman 37. Thangamani 38. Selvi Vijayanirmala 39. Murugesan (R35 to R39 substituted as L.Rs., in the place of deceased 19th respondent) 40. Subbulakshmi N.Thulasi 41. Kanageswari N.Thulasi 42. T.Saminathan N.Thulasi (R40 to R42 substituted as L.Rs., in the place of deceased 20th respondent) 43. Sankarammal S.S.Kandasamy 44. Ramalakshmi S.S.Kandasamy 45. Sanmugavel S.S.Kandasamy 46. Patchimuthu S.S.Kandasamy 47. Selvaraj S.S.Kandasamy 48. Maheswari S.S.Kandasamy 49. Chitra S.S.Kandasamy (R43 to R49 substituted as L.Rs., in the place of deceased 21st respondent) 50. P.Nagalakshmi P.Palanisamy 51. P.Thangamani P.Palanisamy 52. P.Chandrasekar P.Palanisamy 53. P.Nithianandam P.Palanisamy 54. Kamala Devi P.Palanisamy (R50 to R54 substituted as L.Rs., in the place of deceased 22nd respondent) .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent made in S.R.399 dated 16.3.2001 in C.P.No.63 of 1997 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to restore the C.P.No.63 of 1997 and proceed as per law giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case. For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Silambanan Senior Counsel for M/s Profex Associates For Respondents :: Mr.G.Anandakumar for RR 2.3, 6 to 13, 15 to 18 and 23 to 54 RR 4.5, 14, 19 to 22 died R1-Court ORDER This writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli in S.R.No.399 dated 16.3.2001 in C.P.No.63 of 1997, to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the Labour Court to restore the C.P.No.63 of 1997 and proceed as per law giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case.
2. The facts in brief leading to the present writ petition are as follows. The respondents herein were earlier working in M/s Palani Murugan Textile Mill, A.Kalaiyamputhoor, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. Later, the said mill was taken over by the writ petitioner and her partners. Even though the respondents-workmen were working in the said textile mill from 1973 onwards, for the reasons known to the petitioner, the mill was closed on 1.7.92. In view of the closure of the mill, the respondents-workmen through their Union filed petitions before the Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) seeking amicable settlement of their mandatory benefits. Though conciliation talks were initiated, unfortunately the same ended in failure, as a result, the workmen were advised by the Conciliation Officer to raise an industrial dispute. Resultantly, by raising the dispute in I.D.No.63 of 1997 before the first respondent-Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, they prayed for payment of lay-off pay, casual leave pay, bonus, salary and arrears of salary for the years 1991 and 1992. During the pendency of the matter, the petitioner failed to show any interest and as a result, an ex parte order was passed by the Labour Court on 19.2.99. Aggrieved by the same, I.A.No.46 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner praying to set aside the ex parte order. The said I.A., was allowed on condition of payment of Rs.100/- towards cost on or before 21.5.99. On compliance of the conditional order, the Labour Court set aside the ex parte order on 21.5.99. After examining P.W.1, the Labour Court posted the matter on 15.10.99 for cross examination by the petitioner and two others. Even though on 15.10.99, respondent no.3 in the claim petition cross examined P.W.1, again the respondents 1 & 2 in the claim petition, namely, the writ petitioner and another, remained absent, as a result, an ex parte order was passed against them. Once again, they filed I.A.No.163 of 1999 praying to set aside the ex parte order and the said I.A., was also allowed on 31.12.99. When the claim petition came up for hearing on 21.7.2000, again the respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition did not appear and on account of their non-appearance, the case was posted to 18.8.2000. Even on 18.8.2000, they did not appear and thereafter the matter came to be frequently adjourned for their appearance on 15.9.2000, 20.10.2000, 17.11.2000 and lastly on 15.12.2000. Even after giving a long rope to the writ petitioner and others, they failed to appear before the Labour Court. Therefore, on 21.12.2000, the Labour Court allowed the claim petition on merits after hearing the workmen. Under this background, the writ petitioner filed S.R.No.399 of 2001 to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the set aside petition. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the indulgence shown by the Court and finding that giving one more chance to the petitioner would cause great prejudice to the workmen, dismissed the S.R.No.399 of 2001 by order dated 24.4.2002. As against that order, the present writ petition was filed on 24.10.2002 that too, without impleading the respondents 2 & 3 in the claim petition as party respondents to the writ petition.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Even though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner fervently requested this Court to post the matter for settlement and this Court also posted the matter for an amicable settlement, but the parties unfortunately failed to settle the dispute, as a result, the matter was again shown in the Board. Having abstained from Court and thereby allowed the Labour Court to pass ex parte orders repeatedly, the filing of the present writ petition, even without impleading the respondents 2 & 3 in the claim petition as party respondents to the writ petition, is not going to help either the petitioner or the respondents, for the simple reason that this Court is able to see the present oblique move in filing the writ petition without impleading the respondents 2 & 3 in the claim petition to set aside the ex parte order is nothing but prognosticating the matter. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to refuse the prayer for setting aside the ex parte order. One another fact to be mentioned here is that the claim petition was filed before the Labour Court praying for the mandatory benefits like casual leave pay, lay-off pay, bonus, salary and arrears of salary for the years 1991 and 1992. The Labour Court, after giving repeated opportunities to the writ petitioner, finally concluded that they are not co-operating for disposal of the pending C.P.No.63 of 1997 and allowed the claim petition directing the writ petitioner to pay to the workmen the following amounts:- "Second Respondent - Rs.91,400/- Third Respondent - Rs.94,600/- Fourth Respondent - Rs.93,400/- Fifth Respondent - Rs.91,400/- Sixth Respondent - Rs.91,400/- Seventh Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Eighth Respondent - Rs.50,000/- Ninth Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Tenth Respondent - Rs.34,800/- Eleventh Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Twelfth Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Thirteenth Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Fourteenth Respondent - Rs.73,200/- Fifteenth Respondent - Rs.73,200/- Sixteenth Respondent - Rs.34,800/- Seventeenth Respondent - Rs.1,05,200/- Eighteenth Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Nineteenth Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Twentieth Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Twentyfirst Respondent - Rs.91,400/- Twentysecond Respondent- Rs.72,200/- Twentythird Respondent - Rs.72,200/- Twentyfourth Respondent - Rs.94,600/- Twentyfifth Respondent - Rs.94,600/- Twentysixth Respondent - Rs.72,200/- 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, to give a quietus to the issue, this Court has shown more indulgence to help both the parties to amicably settle the matter. But the care and gesture repeatedly shown by the Labour Court and this Court have not been properly appreciated by the petitioner. Therefore, finding no infirmity in the order of the Labour Court, this Court dismisses the writ petition as devoid of merits. No costs. Index : yes/no 12.02.2013 Internet : yes ss To 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Tiruchirappalli T.RAJA, J.
ss Order in Writ Petition No.41081 o”
12. 02.2013