The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure and the time limit for raising industrial disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. Out of 52 workmen of erstwhile R.M.T Drills (P) Ltd., who were dismissed from service on 12.06.1975, 43 persons chose to prefer industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.286 to 322 of 2004 and 483 and 485 of 2004 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore invoking Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Rest of the workmen had passed away by the time the above said Industrial Disputes came to be filed. Three other workmen also raised similar industrial disputes before the Labour Court in ID Nos. 486, 487 and 488 of 2004. By a common award dated 29.08.2006, the learned Presiding Officer, Coimbatore chose to dismiss all the Industrial Disputes holding that they were not competent as the industrial disputes were not raised complying with the conditions found in Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. The petitioners in I.D.Nos.486, 487 and 488 of 2004 have not chosen to challenge the award. The petitioners in I.D.Nos.286 to 322 of 2004 and 483 and 485 of 2004 alone have chosen to challenge the award by filing the present writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the said award of the Labour Court dated 29.08.2006 in the above industrial disputes and direct the second respondent management to reinstate the petitioners in service with backwages from 01.04.2002 and all other attendant benefits. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Coimbatore chose to dismiss the I.Ds on the following grounds:

1. The industrial disputes under 2-A(2) were not maintainable /were not competent;

2. The second respondent is not the successor of R.M.T Drills (P) Ltd., in which the petitioners were employed as workmen and while working under whose management the petitioners were dismissed from service, and

3. The settlement itself is not genuine one.

3. Mr. N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though the prayer in the petition raising the industrial disputes before the Labour Court has been couched in such terms that the petitioners should be given employment with continuity of service and other benefits from 01.04.2002, as per clause 3 of the settlement dated 17.08.2001 arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a prayer, in effect, was only against the dismissal and non-employment of the petitioners and that hence, the Labour Court ought not to have rejected the Industrial Disputes as industrial disputes raised for implementation of the clauses of Section 18(1) of the Settlement. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question of maintainability was not raised before the Labour Court and hence, the Labour Court ought not to have rejected the Industrial Disputes holding them to be not maintainable under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued further that the second ground assigned by the Labour Court for the rejection of the Industrial Disputes is also unsustainable. The Labour Court held that the second respondent, namely the Revathi Equipment Ltd is not the successor of the employer of the petitioners, namely R.M.T Drills (P) Ltd., and that hence, the industrial disputes raised against the second respondent is not the one raised by the workmen against their employer. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such a finding was based on a finding rendered by this Court in a writ petition in W.P.No.4773 of 1982 dated 07.02.1999 produced as Ex.M20 but since the petitioners were not parties to the said industrial disputes from which the said writ petition had arisen, the finding rendered in the said writ petition would not amount to res judicata as against the petitioners and that hence, the dismissal of the present industrial disputes on the above said ground is also unsustainable. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court arrived at th