ORDER: The petitioners, 37 in number, have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reinstate the petitioners pending payment of backwages etc. as per the award dated 16.5.1988 made by the second respondent in I.D.No.37 of 1985 to 74 of 1985.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would submit that they have been working in the first respondent Textile Mills for a number of years as casual workers continuously without any blemish; that they were denied employment without any reason whatsoever; that thereafter a settlement was arrived at between the Union in which the petitioners were the Members and the Management on 13.10.1980 with regard to their service conditions and payment of wages in which though the daily wages were increased, the Management did not implement the settlement and hence the matter was referred to arbitration and an Award had been passed on 18.8.1981 by the Arbitrator specifically holding that the casual workers should be absorbed into the permanent strength and that occupation wages should be paid to the workers who were doing the job of permanent workers in stages; that unfortunately, the Management called for interview outsiders and selected them without including the names of the petitioners even in the interview list; that the petitioners raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred by the Government for arbitration to the second respondent and even though the Management was an active participant to most part of the proceeding before the Labour Court, still, subsequently, it remained ex parte consequent to which, the Award dated 16.5.1988 had been passed holding the non-employment of the petitioners as not justified and that they be reinstated with continuity of service on full back wages and with other attendant benefits and with the cost of Rs.100 each.

3. The further case of the petitioners as per the pleading is that they caused the lawyer’s notice on 11.1.1992 to the Management, which had then become a unit of the Tamil Nadu Government Joint Management and in reply dated 12.3.1992, the Management made it known that the Unit was under closure at the time of Award and the Government by G.O.Ms.No.253, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadhi (C.II), dated 15.10.1991 suspended all kinds of awards till the periods stated therein since the first respondent Establishment has been declared as a ‘Relief Undertaking’ as per the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1969; that the Government by original Notification in G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 24.10.1990 have declared that the object of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1969 is declared to be enabling the Government to make special provisions for a limited period in respect of industrial relations, financial obligations and other like matters in relation to industrial undertakings, the running of which is considered essential as a measure of preventing or of providing relief against unemployment; that this enactment is a beneficial legislation intended to mitigate the sufferings of the workers of unemployment due to closure; that the Industrial Disputes Act becomes applicable excepting Chapter V-A and Sec.33-C; that Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with ‘Lay Off and Retrenchment’ and Sec.33-C deals with ‘Recovery of Money due from an employer’ and that it is clear that an employee can pursue the remedy in Labour Court and the interests of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act is to relieve the employer from financial burden.

4. In the concluding phase of the pleading, the petitioners would submit that they have been suffering non-employment for quite some time and their juniors have been taken in by the Management while the petitioners have been stranded in the streets; that the argument of the Management that any award prior to the date of Notification suspended by the Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document