V. Parthiban, J.

The present writ petitions have been filed, seeking for the following reliefs:

W.P. No. 34214 of 2013:

“To issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of first respondent dated 14.11.2013 in I.A. No. 356 of 2012 in I.D. No. 277 of 2006 and quash the same.

W.P. No. 34215 of 2013:

“To issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of first respondent dated 01.12.2009 in I.D. No. 277 of 2006 and quash the same.

2. The petitioner company was engaged in manufacture of ready made garments for export since 1987. There were approximately 200 workers, working in the company and the second respondent was one of the workers. According to the second respondent/workman, he was retrenched in violation of mandatory provisions. He raised an industrial dispute against his non-employment and the same was referred for adjudication vide I.D. No. 277 of 2006 before the first respondent/Labour Court. The petitioner/management was set ex parte and an award was passed in I.D. No.277 of 2006 dated 01.12.2009 by the Labour Court, which is extracted as under:

AWARD

This dispute has been raised under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the workman seeking reinstatement with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

“2. The respondent has not filed counter statement.

“3. Today the dispute is taken up for enquiry. WW 1 present. The respondent called absent and set ex parte. Proof affidavit already filed and further WW.1 examined. Exs.W1 to W7 are already marked. The claim is proved. Hence, the I.D. is allowed and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. No costs.”

3. According to the petitioner/management, their factory was closed and was not functioning between 2002 and 2006 and therefore, the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court could not be pursued effectively on behalf of the management. However, since the award which was passed on 1.12.2009, was not implemented by reinstating the second respondent/workman into service and no wages have been paid in terms of the award, the second respondent/workman filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 96 of 2011 for execution of the award and also filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 36 of 2012 seeking for attachment of the machinery of the petitioner unit. By order, dated 14.06.2012, the first respondent/Labour Court ordered attachment. Aggrieved by the ex parte award and subsequent proceedings of attachment ordered by the first respondent Labour Court, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing three interlocutory applications, viz., I.A. Nos. 355, 356 and 357 of 2012 in E.P. No. 96 of 2011 in I.D. No. 277 of 2006, seeking to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award dated 1.12.2009 and to grant stay of further proceedings in I.D. No. 277 of 2007 pending disposal of the applications.

4. The first respondent/Labour Court, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties, vide order dated 14.11.2013 dismissed the interlocutory application in I.A. No. 355 of 2012 filed by the petitioner, seeking to condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte award. Consequent to this, the other interlocutory applications, viz., I.A. Nos. 356 and 357 also came to be dismissed.

5. As against the order dated 14.11.2013 of the Labour Court dismissing the condone delay application, the petitioner has come forward with a writ petition in W.P. No. 34214 of 2013 and also filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 34215 of 2013 as against ex parte award passed by the Labour Court dated 1.12.2009.

6. Since the facts and the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common, these writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal.

7. By order dated 16.12.2013, this Court granted interim stay, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the award amount to the credit of I.D. No. 277 of 2006 on the