IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.02.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.8709 to 8715 of 2000 N.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8709 of 2000 N.Senthilkumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8710 of 2000 K.Mayilsami .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8711 of 2000 K.Sasi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8712 of 2000 S.Govindaraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8713 of 2000 R.Karuppasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8714 of 2000 J.Vadamalayam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8715 of 2000 Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 2.The Management of Carter Engineering Works, 490, Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004. .. Respondents in all WPs Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned award dated 30.11.1998 passed in I.D.Nos.70,65,64,63,66,69 and 68/97 respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages and to pay the minimum wages fixed by the Government. For Petitioners : Mr.Su.Srinivasan R1 : Court For Respondents : Mr.Raghavan for R2 C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners were employees of the second respondent- Management. They raised a dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour III, Coimbatore. On the strength of the failure report given by him, the petitioners filed claim statement before the first respondent-Labour Court. The claim statements were taken on file as I.D.Nos.62/97 to 70/97 and 124/97. The specific stand of the workers in their claim statement was that they were illegally stopped from work on 24.10.1996. Such a termination was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (for short I.D.Act) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. On notice from the first respondent-Labour Court, the second respondent had filed a detailed counter statement in each of the IDs. In the counter statement dated Nil, it was their specific stand that the workers went on illegal strike on 24.04.1996 and 25.04.1996. It was a breach of contract and the question of the Management stopping the workers never arose. They also stated that there was no termination whatsoever on 24.10.1996 as alleged by the workmen. 3. Before the labour Court, on behalf of the workmen, two of the petitioners, namely W.W.1 Karuppusamy and W.W.2 M.K.Ramesh examined themselves. On the side of the second respondent, one P.K.Raju, M.W.1 was examined. The workmen had filed 12 documents and they were marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.12 and on the side of the second respondent, 31 documents were filed and marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.31. 4. The Labour Court on an analysis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that since it was the specific stand of the workmen that they were stopped from work only on 24.10.1996, they will have to prove that the termination took place on the said date. On the contrary, the evidence of W.W.1 and W.W.2 did not even speak about the oral dismissal on 24.10.1996. Even if the date of non-employment was taken on 24.04.1996, there was no termination on the side of the second respondent. Since there was no refusal on the part of the Management to allow them to work, the question of non-employment did not arise. In paragraph 11 of the impugned Award, the Labour Court dealt with various incidents that took place in the factory premises. Even after Ex.M7 which was the first notice given by the Management on 24.04.1996, the workers did not resume work and continued to press for their demands and a stalemate attitude continued. It was also held that three workers had given complaint against the said Karuppusamy of his disorderly behaviour which compelled the Management to instruct the Karuppusamy to resume work after tendering apology to the three workers, which allegedly instigated him to go on strike on 24.04.1996. The Labour Court also held neither those three workers were examined nor evidence was let in to prove Ex.M16. Further, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any termination, the question of compliance under Section 25-F does not arise. Since the workers had failed to prove that there was any non-employment, it was not a fit case to deal with under Section 2- A of the I.D act. It is this common Award which is under challenge in these writ petitions. The writ petition was admitted on 07.06.2000. 5. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the approach of the Labour Court was hypertechnical and there was a definite indication that the termination was on 24.04.1996. However, the learned counsel is unable to explain as to why no amendments were made to their claim statement which became the basis for deciding the lis between the parties. Even though the Labour Court is not trapped by technical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rules of pleading, but in the present case, the specific issue is the termination of the petitioners on a particular date having given the date as 24.10.1996. In the absence of the petitioners filing any application for modifying the pleadings and the oral evidence let in by W.W.1 and W.W.2 did not support their case, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned common Award. 6. In the light of the above, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. svki Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.104. + 1 cc to M/s. Su. Srinivasan, Advocate SR No.12539 KSK(CO) SR/8.3.2010 W.P.Nos.8709 to 8715 of 2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/