JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected in common award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D.Nos. 20 to 24 and 27 to 41 of 2007 dated 27.05.2009 and quash the same insofar as the petitioners are concerned and directing the Respondents 1 & 2 to reinstate the petitioners in service with all benefits and pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.)

Common Order

1. These batch of writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Industrial Labour Court rejecting the petitioners' claim that their retrenchments were in violation of Section 25 F of the 'Industrial Disputes Act, 1947' ( for the sake of brevity 'I.D.Act, 1947'), on the premise that the petitioners herein were not terminated by the Respondent/Corporation instead the petitioners left the services on their own volition which would not amount to “retrenchment” within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947, and consequently provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D.Act, 1947 would not get attracted.

2. Background to the writ petition:

2.1. It may be relevant to set out broadly the facts of the case. The petitioners were admittedly working as casual workmen in the resort of the Respondent/ Corporation at Mahabalipuram. Originally, there were 39 workmen who were on employment on casual basis and it is submitted that they were employed for more than 10 years. Their services were neither confirmed nor any statutory benefits extended other than the Provident Fund Contribution. The petitioners filed an application before the appropriate authority under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to workmen) Act, 1981 (for the sake of brevity “Permanency Act”) on the premise that they were in continuous service with Respondent/ Corporation for more than 480 days in 24 Calendar months. The contention of the petitioners/ workmen was accepted and were made permanent in terms of Section 3 of the Permanency Act vide order dated 27.10.2000. The same was challenged by the Respondents herein in W.P. No.5981 of 2001 . The same was set aside with a direction to the Labour Inspector to re-do the proceedings after granting the Respondent-Corporation adequate opportunity. The Respondent-Corporation was aggrieved by certain observations in particular para 7 of the order of this Court in W.P.5981 of 2001 and thus a Writ Appeal was preferred by the Respondent-Corporation in Writ Appeal No.1960 of 2010.

2.2. It may be relevant to state that during the pendency of the above writ proceeding, the petitioners were allegedly terminated. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners challenged their termination before the Industrial Labour Court on the premise that Section 25 F of the 'Industrial Disputes Act, 1947' ( for the sake of convenience 'I.D.Act, 1947') was not complied with. The Labour Court, however, vide common order dated 27.05.2009 in I.D. Nos.20 to 41 of 2007 rejected the above contention of the petitioners/Workmen herein on the premise that the petitioners had stopped reporting to work on their own volition and therefore it would not constitute "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for Section 25 F of the said Act to get attracted. When the writ appeal in W.A.No.1960 of 2010 came up for hearing, in view of the subsequent developments viz., the disposal of proceeding under I.D. Act, 1947, the writ appeals were disposed by observing that it was open to both the parties to raise all contentions available to them. The above proceedings are set out only to give a broad overview of the litigation between the petitioners and Respondents thus far.

2.3. While it is the case of the Respondent/ Corporation that the workmen had