Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai -5 v. S.Muniappan .. 1st & Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.02.2010CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.Nos.15118 and 15119 of 2000 andW.M.P.Nos.21978 and 21979 of 20001.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai -5.

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage Board, Chepauk, Chennai -5. .. Petitioners in both WPsVs.1.S.Muniappan .. 1st respondent inW.P.No.15118/20001.K.Murugesan .. 1st respondent inW.P.No.15119/20002.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. ..2nd respondent in both WPsPrayer :Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in the impugned award dated 25.03.99 made in I.D.Nos.465/98 and467/98 respectively on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mrs. Sudarshana Sunder For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajendran for R1C O M M O N

O R D E RIn both the writ petitions, the petitioners are the TamilNadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Board) represented by its Managing Director and Executive Director. Aggrieved by theex parte Award passed by the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.Nos.465and 467 of 1998, the present writ petitions have been filed.2. Admittedly, the Labour Court Salem, passed the impugnedex-parte Award after examining the contesting workmen and marking two documents. In the impugned Award, it was stated that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the respondents were absent and hence, they were setex parte. It is not clear as to how that can be done.

It is the case of the Management that originally the disputes were pending before the Labour Court, Vellore asI.D.Nos.231 and 233 of 1997. Thereafter, on formation of the Labour Court at Salem, the matters were transferred and re-numbered as I.D.Nos.465 and 467 of 1998. It was contended by the Management that they did not receive any notice from the LabourCourt, Salem. In any event, they should be given an opportunity to put forth their case since they had already filed counterstatements before the Labour Court, Vellore raising objections which had substantial bearing on the dispute.

In both the writ petitions, notice of motion was ordered on 07.09.2000. Pending the notice of motion, TWAD Board was directed to deposit Rs.43,740/- to the credit of each of the IDon the file of the Labour Court, Salem. Though old ID numbers were given as allotted by the Labour Court, Vellore, subsequently by an order dated 19.09.2000, the order stood corrected. The TWADBoard was directed to deposit the amounts in respect of currentI.D.Nos.465 and 467 of 1998. Mrs. Sudarshana Sunder, learned counsel for the TWAD Board states that the Board has complied with the said condition.

It is seen from the records that though it was an exparte Award, Rule 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial DisputesRules provides for setting aside an ex parte Award. There is no reason why the petitioner- TWAD Board did not pursue the remedy of moving the very same Labour Court instead of filing writ petitions before this Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even otherwise, the Labour Courtshould have passed a speaking Award and ex parte Award cannot bepassed in this fashion. Inspiration was drawn from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras V. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennai and another reported in 1997 (1) L.L.J. 923 (DB).

In that case in more or less identical circumstances, aDivision Bench of this Court by exercising power under Article226 of the Constitution set aside an ex-parte Award and directed the Labour Court to decide the matter afresh. The said judgment squarely applied to the case of the petitioner Board. However, the workmen cannot be left high and dry. In the normal circumstances, since there was an Award in their favour, the workmen should have filed an appropriate application to get the last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the I.D.ACt. For reasons best known to them, they did not move this Court with anappropriate application and the matter has been kept pending for the last 10 years. For this, only workmen should be blamed fornot taking effective steps.

In any event, since the disputes were pending for more https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ than 13 years, it is just and proper that the Labour Court should be directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. Accordingly, the Labour Court, Salem is directed to dispose of the I.D.Nos.465and 467 of 1998 after due notice to the parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Both parties are directed to co-operate in disposing of the matters.

Since the workmen have not been given any relief thoughthere was an Award in their favour, it is just and proper that each of the workman should be given liberty to withdraw the amounts of Rs.43.470/- lying to the credit of the respective IDs.If any relief is given by the Labour Court in its final Award, this amount can be adjusted against it. Otherwise, the amounts given can be taken as subsistence allowance to the workmen for conducting their cases before the Labour Court. (See: FakirbhaiFulabhai Solanki v. Presiding Officer and another reported in1986 (2) L.L.J. 124)