IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.04.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.8610 of 1998 The Management of TI Diamond chain Ltd., Ambattur, Madras 53 rep. by Vice Presidents .. Petitioner -Vs.- 1. The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Madras. 2. P.Selvakumar .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in ID No.903 of 1991, quash his award dated 18.11.1997 and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.John for M/s T.S.Gopalan & Co. O R D E R The Management is the writ petitioner and they are challenging the Award in I.D.No.903 of 1991 dated 18.11.1997 in granting relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service to the second respondent workman. 2. The writ petition is admitted on 25.06.1998 and an interim stay was granted for four weeks. Subsequently, the interim stay was made absolute on 26.08.2003. Today, when the matter is listed for final disposal with the office endorsement stating that it is not ready in respect of second respondent, who is the contesting workman. The office note along with the notice papers are also circulated. It is seen that as early as on 05.08.1998 an endorsement has been made stating that the address given by the Management/writ petitioner is not correct and the worker is not in that address. Subsequently, the matter was called before the Deputy Registrar for compliance and since no representation has been made, the matter was listed before the Court on 01.11.2001. This Court gave direction for compliance by 12.11.2001, failing which it was stated that the writ petition in respect of the second respondent will stand automatically dismissed. Perhaps their getting the stay made absolute even without proper service may be the reason for their complacence and indifference in not serving the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Subsequent to this order, Mr.John, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that he has filed batta. But, merely filing batta but not taking steps to serve the second respondent will not solve the problem. In this case, the earliest endorsement made by bailiff was the address given by the petitioner in respect of the second respondent was not proper and the workman was not living in that address. The Management should have taken steps to find the correct address of the contesting respondent and should have informed this Court. Thereafter, he should have taken out an application for substitute service. But, that was not done. Even if the petitioner had filed a fesh batta with the very same address, it would not have been served. It is clearly seen that even after ten years, the workman has not been served who is the only contesting respondent in this writ petition. 4. In such circumstances, since the contesting second respondent has not been served even after ten years after the filing of the writ petition in the manner known to law, the writ petition against the second respondent stands dismissed. Once the writ petition is dismissed as against the second respondent, there is no effective party in the writ petition to deal with the issue raised. Accordingly, the writ petition also will stand dismissed for non- joinder of parties. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar gms To The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Madras. + 1 CC to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate, S.R.No.22156 W.P.No.8610 of 1998 MDR(CO) SRA (29/04/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/