In all these 90 Writ Petitions, heard the arguments of Mr. S.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Ramasubramaniam and Associates and Mr. D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the second respondents and Mr.K.Srinivasan appearing for the third respondent and have perused the records.

2. In all these 90 Writ Petitions, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the prayer of the writ petitioner/Management seeking for a restraint order against the Labour Court from proceeding with industrial disputes raised by the respective second respondents under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short I.D.Act) can be granted by this Court?

3. Since the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions are common, the petitioner is hereinafter referred to as the Management and the second respondents are collectively referred to as the Workmen and the third respondent as the contractor.

4. The workmen were employed by the management and they were members of "TAFE Employees Union", which is a registered Trade Union. These workmen were working under various capacities and they were claiming that they had put in six years of service. The Trade Union to which they belong to, raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the I.D.Act seeking for permanency of their service on account of their having completed 480 days of service within a period of 24 calendar months in terms of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act 1981. It is also their case that Provident Fund subscriptions were deducted by the management. Complaints were made to the Labour Department when the Trade Union took up their cause of regularisation. It was stated by them that the management brought in a contractor to make it appear that they were all the workmen of the contractor, thereby denying their right of regularisation and permanency. It is their positive case that on 16.2.2005, a printed letter was sought to be obtained from them in order to make it appear that they have voluntarily gave statements that they were working under the contractor and that they have been instigated by their Trade Union and they were always willing to work under the contractor. When the workmen refused to sign under the dated line, it resulted in denial of employment.

5. Therefore, the matter was pursued before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Dindigul. The conciliation ended in failure and its report dated 20.5.2005 was submitted to the Government. The said report contained several demands of the workmen. On the receipt of the said report, the Government of Tamilnadu by G.O. D.No.813 Labour and Employment dated 24.11.2006 refused to refer the dispute. With reference to the demand No.I, viz., that the workmen to be made permanent having worked for six years and also P.F. being deducted from the salary. The Government stated that originally, the dispute was raised on behalf of 160 workers and thereafter, 127 workers were removed from service and out of 127, 35 workers have signed settlement under Section 18(1) with the contractor and in respect of 92 workers, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has given a failure report under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act. Therefore, since the workmens non-employment was the subject matter of an individual dispute, the dispute regarding their permanency can be raised after the disposal of the industrial dispute. In respect of the 8 demands for which dispute was raised, the same reason was given by the Government.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the trade union to which the workmen belonged has filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(MD)No.6111 of 2007 and the matter has been admitted and notice has been ordered to the Government and the Management and the matter is sub-judice.

7. In the mean while, even before the declining of that reference, the workmen have individually raised a dispute for which failure report has been given by the