M.DHANDAPANI,J.

Today the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though this Court accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Winsingh and other reinstated workman are not entitled for backwages while they are entitled for continuity of service, however, there occurred a typographical error in paragraph No.6 of the order dated

07.04.2025. Accordingly, he prays for necessary correction in the order.

3. A perusal of the papers reveal that inadvertently, a typographical error has occurred in Paragraph No.6 of the order dated 07.04.2025. Therefore, paragraph 6 of the order dated 07.04.2025 shall stand replaced with the following:-

“6. In view of the consent expressed by the learned Senior counsels appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent, this court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner / management to reinstate the said Winsingh with continuity of service within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the said Winsingh and other reinstated workmen are not entitled for any backwages. However, they are entitled for continuity of service. It is made clear that the management shall fix the wages on par with other workmen. If the petitioner management fails to adhere to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner management is directed to pay backwages in favour of the respondent /

workmen.

4. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the order dated 07.04.2025 and issue fresh copy of the order to the learned counsel for the parties.

23.04.2025 RAP M.DHANDAPANI,J.

RAP

23.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.15376 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.18272 of 2018 and 5553 of 2022 The Management of RSB Transmissions India Limited, G23, G24, Sipcot Industrial Park, Katrambakkam, Irrugattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District - 602 105. ...Petitioner Vs.

1. The Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai – 600 104.

2. United Labour Federation, Rep. by its Secretary, No.149, IV Floor, C.J.Complex, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001. ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award of the 1^st respondent, dated 07.05.2018 passed in I.D.No.318 of 2012 to quash the order.

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Silambanan Sr. Counsel for Mr.K.Rangesh for M/s.Jayaraman and Associates For Respondents : Mr.V. Prakash Sr. Counsel for M/s.P.Ganeshram for R2 R1 -labour Court

O R D E R

This Writ petition has been filed to quash the Award of the 1^st respondent, dated 07.05.2018 passed in I.D.No.318 of 2012.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner union had entered into a bi-partite settlement u/s.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 09.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the members of the second respondent Trade Union indulged in various illegal activities and 29 number of workmen made serious allegations against the Deputy General Manager and Security Officer vide written complaints dated 23.11.2010 and 25.11.2010. Upon inquiry, the management came to know that the above allegations were baseless. Hence, the management sought an undertaking from the above said workmen vide its notice dated 29.11.2010 and suspended them from work, during which time, the management has also paid wages to the workmen. However, all the 29 workmen have vacated their place of residences and the present whereabouts of the workmen were not known. Though the Management directed them to report for duties by giving the undertaking as sought by them, they deliberately refused to report to duty. Thereby, the management stopped paying wages and initiated disciplinary proceedings as against the respective workmen. When the above said demand of undertaking by the management was challenged by