A single writ petition cannot be filed by the management against multiple workmen seeking to challenge an award passed by the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the workmen do not have a joint interest in the subject matter of the dispute, but only a similar interest.

Mohan, J.

This writ petition is to quash the order made by the Labour Court, Madurai in Claim Petition No. 117 of 1971 under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

2. The case of the claimants-workmen was they were in the service of the writ petitioner-Saw Mill for a period ranging from 4 to 6 years and all of a sudden they were refused employment with effect from 5-10-1970. It is further stated that when their union issued a notice to the writ petitioner seeking re-employment, it was informed that the Saw Mill had been closed. In view of the above, the workmen claimed closure compensation at the rate of 15 days wages for every year of service and also a month's salary in lieu of a month's notice of the closure of the mill leave wages for the respective period of their service including wages for national holidays and festival holidays for which leave was not granted to them and bonus at the rate of Rs. 40 per year for every year of service. Obviously, therefore, the claim of each workman had varied and the total amount claimed by all of them comes to more than Rs. 40, 000.

3. In the counter statement of the writ petitioner it was pleaded that there were only 6 persons who were regularly employed in the Saw Mill who were claimants 2, 13 to 15 and 19 and one Ambrose and the others engaged by the Saw Mill were merely casual workers, called upon to do work on piece-rate basis. One S. M. James was the Manager of the Saw Mill in 1968 when he left to start a Saw Mill of his own named Andavar Saw Mill. All workmen of the writ petitioner's Saw Mill, both regular and casual, except S. Arulappan, S. Saluvai Thasan and R. Aruputham, left the service of the writ petitioner along with the said James. As a result of it, right from 1968 a new set of workmen were employed in the saw mill and from 2-6-1969 even those workers abstained from work. This resulted in an industrial dispute and the matter was settled on 24-1-1970. Since in 1970 the writ petitioner because ill he could not attend to the business of the Saw Mill. There was none else to whom he could entrust its running. He was medically advised rest and, therefore, it was thought better to close the mill with effect from 3-10-70 for which purpose due notice of closure was given to all workmen on 3-9-1970. The general notice of closure was put on the notice board on 3-9-1970 and the workmen of the Saw Mill had full notice of the contemplated closure.

4. It was also contended that the respondents had not put in the number of years of service in the Saw Mill as claimed by each of them in their claim statement. The workmen had not put in more than one year's continuous service in the Saw Mill and, therefore, they were not entitled to closure compensation. In the counter-statement, the details of the period during which each one of the workmen had been in service were mentioned. The entitlement claimed under the head of leave wages including wages for national and festival holidays and the bonus was denied. Lastly, it was submitted before the Labour Court that the claim petition under S.33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable.

5. Overruling the objections of the writ petitioner, the Labour Court, Madurai passed an award on 29-3-1974. It held that the workmen were not entitled to leave wages including wages for national and festival holidays and also bonus. However, it found the workmen were entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice and closure compensation at the rate of 15 days wages for every year of service put in by each one of them. In arriving at that conclusion, the Labour Court worked out the number of years of service put in by each of the workmen. Ultimately, it awarded Rs. 900 to the first claimant Murugan, towards a month's salary and closure compensation, Rs. 660 to each of the workmen Nos. 2 and 3, namely, T. Rathinamony and M. Rasaya, Rs. 825 to the fourth claimant Amritharaj, Rs. 785 to the fifth workman Natesan, Rs.