1. The petitioner is the management in all these writ petitions. The writ petitions are filed against the order passed by the first respondent/ Labour Court, Puducherry dated 11.3.2010 in I.A.No.71 of 2007 in I.D.No.32 of 2005(L), I.A.No.77 of 2007 in I.D.No.39 of 2005(L), I.A.No.90 of 2007 in I.D.No.31 of 2005(L), I.A.No.75 of 2007 in I.D.No.37 of 2005(L), I.A.No.81 of 2007 in I.D.No.43 of 2005(L), I.A.No.91 of 2007 in I.D.No.45 of 2005(L), I.A.No.80 of 2007 in I.D.No.42 of 2005(L), I.A.No.76 of 2007 in I.D.No.38 of 2005(L), I.A.No.73 of 2007 in I.D.No.34 of 2005(L), I.A.No.79 of 2007 in I.D.No.41 of 2005(L), I.A.No.82 of 2007 in I.D.No.9 of 2006(L), I.A.No.74 of 2007 in I.D.No.35 of 2007(L), I.A.No.78 of 2007 in I.D.No.40 of 2007(L) and I.A.No.72 of 2007 in I.D.No.33 of 2005(L) respectively.

2. When the matter came up on 9.4.2010, this Court, on finding that the proceeding before the Labour Court is still on a question of framing a preliminary issue, directed notice to be served on the second respondent in these writ petitions privately as well as on the counsel who appeared for the workmen before the Labour Court.

3. It is the case of the management that the second r