IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 12.01.2024 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No.2068, 2070 & 2073 of 2020 and WMP.Nos.2406, 2409 & 2415 of 2020 The Management, Hutsun Agro Products Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory B. Muthunathan, Attur Main Road, Karumapuram, Salem 106.

...Petitioner in all W.P. Nos.

Vs.

M.Vijayakumar ...Respondent in W.P.No.2068 of 2020 N.Ramanujam ...Respondent in W.P.No.2070 of 2020 S.Balasanmugam ...Respondent in W.P.No.2073 of 2020 Prayer in W.P.No.2068 of 2020: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorai, calling for the records of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No. 92 of 2011 and quash its Award dated 29.08.2019.

Prayer in W.P.No.2070 of 2020: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorai, calling for the records of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No. 93 of 2011 and quash its Award dated 29.08.2019.

Prayer in W.P.No.2073 of 2020: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorai, calling for the records of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Salem in I.D. No. 69 of 2012 and quash its Award dated 29.08.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravindran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Bazeerahamed in all W.P.Nos.

For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan in all W.P.Nos.

COMMON ORDER

Writ Petition is filed challenging the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.Nos'. 92 & 93 2011 and 69 of 2012, dated 29.08.2019 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with backwages and all other attendant benefits from 05.03.2010.

2. The respondents were working with the petitioner as staff's in the dispatch section as delivery Assistant and were paid salary of Rs.6200/-, 7315/- and 5800/- per month respectively. The respondents worked for 17, 19 and 18 years with the petitioner management. While so, when the respondents demanded the petitioner to pay them over time wages, the petitioner prevented the respondents to report for duty from 01.12.2009 to 05.03.2010 and subsequently the respondents were dismissed from service without following the labour procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice. As the conciliation proceedings failed, the respondents raised the industrial dispute claiming reinstatement along with all attendant benefits.

3. The petitioner stated that while the respondents were working in the dispatch section, during the inspection it was found that there was a shortage of Rs.1,69,830/-. When the enquiry commenced, in order to avoid the same the respondents remained absent from 24.12.2009. The respondents reported for duty on 08.01.2010, 19.01.2010 and 21.01.2010 and thereafter were absent from duty on 24.12.2009. The petitioner sent notices to the respondents on 09.03.2010 to join duty. The respondents neither reported for duty nor sent any reply. According to the petitioner the respondents abandoned their service. According to the petitioner the allegation of the respondents that they were not permitted to report for duty from 01.12.2009 to 05.03.2010 was false. The petitioner therefore stated that it was the respondents who abandoned the service and so there was no termination by the petitioner of their service.

4. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the entire evidence on record allowed the claim petition and passed impugned Award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with backwages and all other attendant benefits from 05.03.2010. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award of Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondents with all attendant benefits from 05.03.2010 is erroneous and unsustainable as the Labour Court did not give any finding on the oral termination. According to the learned Senior co