1. This judgment shall dispose of W.P.Nos.1856, 1857, 3787 of 2008 and 12578 of 2010, as the common question of law and facts are involved.

2 W.P.No.1856 of 2008:

The Management of Wavin India Ltd. has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.Nos.195 to 200, 240, 241 and 701 to 703 of 1990.

3. W.P.No.3787 of 2008:

14 workmen of M/s.Wavin India Ltd. have also challenged the same award passed in I.D.Nos.196, 197, 199, 701, 708, 710, 711 & 713 of 1990.

4. W.P.No.1857 of 2008:

This writ petition has also been filed by The Management of Wavin India Ltd. to challenge the interim order passed by the learned Labour Court in refusing the application for physical inspection.

5. W.P.No.12578 of 2010

This writ petition has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased workmen late M.Loganesan challenging the same award.

6. The workers of M/s.Wavin India Ltd. raised a industrial dispute against the management praying for reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

7. The dispute raised by the workmen was disposed of by two common awards. These were challenged in W.P.No.3555, 3556 of 1998, 5684 to 5690 of 1998 and 5711 to 5722 of 1998. This Court quashed the awards and remitted back the case to the learned Labour Court for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties with permission to lead further evidence.

8. The operative part of the judgment of this Court reads as under:

"28 On a perusal of the award of the Labour Court, this Court is unable to find a specific finding excepting the conclusion that the workers are entitled to be reinstated with backwges and continuity of service. Neither a finding has been recorded on the issue whether it is a case of closure ?. Whether the closure pleaded is true and valid ? Whether it is a case of retrenchment ? Or Whether there is illegal termination ? Or Whether the factory had revived its operation within two years from the date of alleged closure ? Or Whether the factory under BIFR scheme had started functioning and if so from which date ? All these questions which are material had not been adverted not a finding has been rendered by the Labour Court. Hence the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained as it had failed to consider and record its findings on the above material issues or points.

29 This Court hasten to add that the evidence let in by either side is wanting in certain respects and further even that the Labour Court also had failed to advert not only material portion of the evidence but also failed to consider some of the admissions in evidence let in by either side.

30 In the circumstances, in view of the illegalities pointed out above, and in the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass ultimately, it is not expressing any opinion nor it would be proper for this Court to appraise the evidence as if it is a Court of original jurisdiction while exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

31 The Labour Court is expected to frame proper points that arise for consideration in the dispute raised before it, marshal the facts and evidence and record its conclusions in respect of each one of the points in dispute and thereafter should pass an award. In respect of all the above aspects, there is a total failure on the part of the Labour Court. Further, the Labour Court also had committed an illegality and error apparent on the face of the record in holding that there could be no closure much less a valid closure merely because, certain charter of demands were pending and the parties were dragging their feet for a considerable period. The errors pointed out are apparent on the face of the record and these errors pointed out would show that there has been failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the first respondent Labour Court. This Court sitting in Article