IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 25.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1902 of 2006 Management of Coimbatore District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd, rep by its General Manager, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 002. ...... Petitioner -Vs- 1. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 2. Balasubramanian 3. R.Ponnusamy 4. R.Nagarajan 5. M.Dhanam 6. K.Jayabalan 7. M.Krishnasamy 8. V.Selvaraj 9. N.Ramanathan 10.V.Renukadevi 11.M.Selvaraj 12.C.Lakshmanan 13.K.Lillipushpam 14.V.Sowbagyam 15.M.Thangavel 16.P.Krishnasamy 17.M.Kannan 18.R.Rajan 19.M.Mohan 20.K.Bathrappan 21.N.Mahendramani 22.V.Kuppan 23.A.Venkitachalam 24.C.Janaki 25.M.Natarajan ...... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer: This petition has been filed praying for a Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent Labour Court, Coimbatore in relation to its common order in the Computation Petition Nos.576 to 599 of 2003 dated 28.02.2005 and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.P.Anbarasan For Respondents : M/s.R.Govardhan (R2 to R25) (Row & Reddy) O R D E R At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 25, had placed before this Court, an order, dated, 31.03.2006, made in W.P.No.40444 of 2005, which is extracted as follows: "This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the First Respondent Labour Court, Coimbatore in relation to its common order in the Computation Petition Nos.706, 707, 708 and 709 of 2003 dated 13.07.2005 and quash the same. 2. The gist of the facts as could be culled from the affidavit filed along with the petition is that the petitioner management is aggrieved over the common order of the Labour Court passed in the computation petitions filed by the respondents 2 of 5 herein, who were the employees of the management. Originally, the respondents 2 to 5 herein availed the benefits of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and retired from services as early as in the year 2000 itself. During such period of their employment, the respondents 2 to 5 herein went on strike for a period of 8 days, for which the petitioner management deducted the wages and hence aggrieved over the same the respondents 2 to 5 herein after about 2 1/2 years from the date of the voluntary retirement approached the Labour Court for computation and accordingly obtained an order, which is under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ challenge in this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner management, as per Section 36(2) of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 alone the deduction was made and that the Labour Court on a wrong footing that the deductions were made under Section 9(2) of the Payment of Wages Act had opined that Section 1(6) of the Payment of Wages Act is a bar to Section 9(2) of the said Act and accordingly allowed the applications and further according to the petitioner, when the deductions were not made under Section 9(2) of the Act the question of depositing such funds to the Tamilnadu Welfare Fund does not raise and on such grounds would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 would submit that the action of the respondent in not depositing the unpaid salary of the employee with the Labour Welfare Fund is in total violation of Section 3 of the Tmail Nadu Labour Fund Act 1972 and the action of the respondents in deducting the salary of the petitioner prior to the date of the alleged strike is not in accordance with law and accordingly, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for either side and on a perusal of the impugned order, it is clearly seen that the Labour Court has well considered the submissions of either parties and has come to such a conclusion of awarding the claim made by the respondents 2 to 5, which needs no interference by this Court, has having been found justifiable and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. " 2. He had also submitted that the said order, dated, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 31.03.2006, passed by this Court, has become final and the respondents 2 to 25 therein had also been paid the amounts due to them. He had also submitted that the reasons given by the first respondent Labour Court, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, are similar to the reasons shown in the order under challenge, in W.P.No.40444 of 2005. Therefore he had prayed that this Court may dismiss the Writ Petition, in view of the earlier order, dated, 31.03.2006, made in W.P.No.40444 of 2005 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order passed by this Court, on 31.03.2006, in W.P.No.40444 of 2005, has become final and the amounts due to the respondents 2 to 25, in the said Writ Petition had also been paid. 4.In view of the submissions made by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, on 31.03.2006, in W.P.No.40444 of 2005, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar arr To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. +1 C/C to Mr.P. Anbarasan, Advocate SR no. 12915 +1 C/C to M/s. Row & Ros Advocate SR no. 129915 Writ Petition No.1902 of 2006 CK- CO kV-26/03/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/