1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 29.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.13591 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 1. The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, represented by its Managing Director, No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai. 2. The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, RWS Division, 84, Bharathi Main Road, N.T.R.Nagar, Theni. ..Petitioners Vs 1. The Labour Court, Madurai. 2. S.Jeyaraman ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing C.P.No.94, dated 28.07.2011 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner :M/s.Porkodi Karnan ORDER The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board has come to this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the correctness of the impugned order, dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.94, on the ground that the Labour Court has failed to take note of the fact that the settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act would be binding upon all the employees. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the second respondent/S.Jayaraman, was appointed as Watchman in the Cumbum Division of the petitioner/board on 22.01.1986 as a daily wager, he was allowed to work for 89 days and on 15.11.1987, he was removed from service orally. Subsequently, when there was need of the Watchman and on the basis of the need arisen for re-employment, the second respondent re-appointed him as Watchman on 01.07.1988. Again he was removed from service on 12.06.1989 orally. Aggrieved by the said order passed, the second respondent approached the Labour Court by raising Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.570 of 1989. The Labour Court finally by award, dated 21.09.1992 directed the petitioner/Board to re-instate the second respondent in service with back-wages and continuity of service. Thereafter, the second respondent was absorbed in the petitioner's service on 04.02.1995, again as a daily wager. Subsequently, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 08.08.1996, a settlement was arrived at between the Union and the Management under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per the agreement arrived at between the Union and the Management, the petitioner/Board regularized the daily wagers and to pay Rs.100/- per year during the employment period, with further clause that no pay would be paid during the period in which the concerned employees remain unemployed. After this agreement was reached under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, the second respondent approached the first respondent/Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by way of a claim petition, bearing C.P.No.94 of 2006, claiming a sum of Rs.1,76,373/- as back-wages. The first respondent/Labour Court accepting the case of the second respondent, passed the impugned order, dated 28.07.2011. The said award according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not legally maintainable, for the reason that the first respondent has failed to see that the second respondent is also bound by the settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the direction given to the petitioner/Board to pay the daily wage from 12.06.1989 to 03.02.1995 is not legally sustainable. The said argument does not carry any merit or substance. 3. When the petitioner approached the Labour as against the order of removal in I.D.No.570 of 1989, the Labour Court by order, dated 21.09.1992, directed the petitioner to re-instate the second respondent into service with back-wages and continuity of service. The said order till date has not been implemented. Secondly, though the order was passed directing the petitioner to absorb the second respondent on 21.09.1992, the second respondent was absorbed only on 04.02.1995 again as a daily wager. Therefore, the direction given by the first respondent to pay the second respondent the daily wage salary from 12.06.1986 to 03.02.1995 cannot be found fault with. 4. The petitioner/Board after the award, dated 21.09.1992 passed in I.D.No.570 of 1989 has not challenged the said order which shows that the petitioner/Board has accepted the award passed in I.D.No.570 of 1989, dated 21.09.1992. Therefore, by subsequent settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot try to take away the benefit conferred by the first respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.570 of 2009. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner is directed to implement the award forthwith. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. vsn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ TO Sub Assistant Registrar The Labour Judge, Madurai. W.P(MD)No.13591 OF 2011 2P/2C DATED:29.11.2011 RPB : 19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/