JUDGMENT :

J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in C.P. No. 231 of 1996, dated 15.09.2004 and quash the same.

1. The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in C.P. No. 231 of 1996, dated 15.09.2004 and quash the same.

2. It is the case that the petitioners 1 to 3 are carrying on the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals and the fourth petitioner is carrying on the finance business. Similarly, a firm named M/s. Anuradha Enterprises was also involved in the finance business and due to the death of Mrs. Anuradha, the said firm was closed. The first petitioner firm employed the second respondent as a driver in its firm, in the year 1970 and thereafter, terminated him from service on 02.03.1995. Aggrieved over his termination, the second respondent has filed a petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’) before the Labour Officer, seeking to take steps for his reinstatement. While so, the Labour Officer II, Chennai vide proceeding in Na.Ka.No. A/514/95, dated 30.08.1995, informed that the conciliation proceedings which were taken with regard to the reinstatement of the second respondent into service ended in failure.

3. Thereafter, the second respondent has filed a Claim Petition in C.P. No. 231 of 1996 before the first respondent Court under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, claiming a sum of Rs.5,38,500/- towards balance of minimum wages from April 1970 to March 1994. The petitioners and the aforesaid M/s. Anuradha Enterprises were respondents in that Claim Petition.

4. The first petitioner has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made by the second respondent in the Claim Petition. On 09.07.2002, when the said Claim Petition was taken up for enquiry, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners as well as the said M/s. Anuradha Enterprises and therefore, they were set ex-parte by the first respondent Court. But the said ex-parte order came to the knowledge of the first petitioner firm only on 15.10.2003, when it received the notice dated 25.09.2003, from Labour and Employment Department. After the receipt of the said notice, challenging the ex-parte order dated 09.07.2002 passed by the first respondent Court, the first petitioner has filed W.P. No. 37998 of 2003 before this Court. On 07.07.2004, this Court has set aside the said ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent Court for fresh consideration. Particularly, this Court has directed the first respondent Court to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the first respondent Court conducted trial. During the trial, on 02.09.2004 one Mr. D. Vijayakumar (RW-1) gave evidence on behalf of the petitioners herein. The first petitioner has also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 444 of 2004, seeking to receive additional counter statement in C.P. No. 231 of 1996 and the same was allowed by the first respondent Court vide order dated 30.08.2004. On 10.09.2004, the petitioners and the said M/s. Anuradha Enterprises have also filed their detailed written arguments in C.P. No. 231 of 1996. Subsequently, the first respondent Court vide order dated 15.09.2004 has allowed the said C.P. No. 231 of 1996 in entirety by directing the respondents (petitioners herein and M/s. Anuradha Enterprises) to pay the claimed amount of Rs. 5,38,500/- to the petitioner (second respondent herein). Challenging the order dated 15.09.2004 which was passed in favour of the second respondent, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners c