IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.02.2011 Coram THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.Nos.12778 and 12779 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2009 N.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.12778/2009 A.Arumugam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.12779/2009 .. Vs .. 1. The Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore. 3. The Thasildar, Wallaja, Vellore. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District. 5. The Management of Hybro Chains Private Limited, 17A, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Ranipet, Vellore. 6. The Management of Maladi Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited, (Under Maladi Group of Companies), 67, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Ranipet. ... Respondents in both W.Ps. Prayer in both W.Ps.:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to recover the amounts due to the petitioners from the fifth respondent pursuant to G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112 respectively, dated 24.02.2009, by State Government of Tamil Nadu Labour and Employment Department. For Petitioner : Mr.G.B.Saravan Bhavan For RR-1 to 4 : Mr.B.Vijay, Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R-5 : Mr.S.V.Ramamoorthy For R-6 : Mr.John for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co COMMON ORDER As the common question of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, common order is being passed. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from W.P.No.12778 of 2009. 2. The petitioners, in these two writ petitions, have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to implement the order passed by the learned Labour Court under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners, in these two writ petitions, were dismissed from service. Against which, they raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. After failure of conciliations, the matter was taken to the learned Labour Court, Vellore, where the management filed counter statement. However, thereafter, due to non-appearance of the management, an ex-party award was passed in favour of the petitioners. As the Labour Court award was not honored, the petitioners again approached the learned Labour Court for commutation of the benefit under the award by moving application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. The petition was allowed. 3. It is admitted case by the parties that the order passed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act has attained finality, as the management failed in their challenge before this Court as also before the learned Labour Court. 4. In order to execute the award, the petitioners approached the State Government under Section 33(C)(1) of the Act. The Government, after issuing show cause notice to the management, directed the District Collector, to recover the amount. 5. The case of the petitioners is that in spite of G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112, dated 24.02.2009, directing the District Collector, to recover the amounts due to the petitioners, till date, no action has been taken. 6. The learned counsel for the Management does not dispute the fact that the award as well as order under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act has attained finality, and in the execution proceeding taken by the petitioners order vide G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112, dated 24.02.2009 was passed. The learned counsel for the management only submits that management taking steps to get ex-party proceedings set aside as the amount involved is very high. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. This contention of the learned counsel for the management cannot be accepted, as the order passed by the learned Labour Court has to be respected and enforced in accordance with law. 8. The learned Government Advocate is unable to justify the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 3 for executing the award by taking coercive steps, by involving the Land Revenue Act, against the management. 9. Respondents 1 to 3 are under statutory duty under Section 33(C)(1) of the Act, to execute the award passed by the learned Labour Court. It is a case where the respondents have failed to perform their statutory duty under the law, in spite of expiry of more than two years. 10. For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing respondents 1 to 3 to enforce of order passed by the learned Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act and recover the amount awarded in favour of the petitioners, positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It will be open to respondents 2 and 3 to use coercive method to recover the amount. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jrl To 1. The Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore. 3. The Thasildar, Wallaja, Vellore. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,Ranipet, Vellore District. 1 cc To Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan, Advocate, SR.9436 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.9288 1 cc To M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate, SR.9561 2 cc To Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy, Advocate, SR.8871 W.P.Nos.12778 & 12779/2009 BVN(CO) RH (18.2.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/