The management's failure to challenge prior awards led to their dismissal, affirming the workman's rights under Labour Court rulings.

A.Murugan ...Respondent in all the petition Prayer in WP/5545/2024: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award passed in CP.No.2 of 2016 dated 29.11.2021 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and quash the same.

Prayer in WP/5547/2024: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed in EP.No.5 of 2022 in CP.No.2 of 2016 dated 24.03.2023 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and quash the same.

Prayer in WP/5549/2024: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award passed in CP.No.8 of 2021 dated 19.07.2022 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. T.Chandrasekaran (In all petitions)

For Respondent : Mr. K.Arunagiri (In all petitions)

C O M M O N O R D E R

The respondent management before the Labour Court is the writ petitioner challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, in CP.No.2 of 2016, EP.No.5 of 2022 in CP.No.2 of 2016 and CP.No.8 of 2021. It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as Technical Assistant in the respondent management on 07.10.1997 and had served in this capacity till 25.07.1999. Thereafter, he was transferred to Villupuram where he was posted as a time keeper, where he has served till 20.07.2000.

2. On 21.07.2000 the petitioner was orally terminated against which he had raised Industrial Dispute in ID.No.93 of 2001. By award dated 27.01.2004 the Labour Court set aside the oral termination dated 21.07.2000 and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. As against this order the petitioner herein had filed WP.No.23162 of 2004 and by order dated 08.12.2008 this Court was pleased to remit the matter to verify as to whether the petitioner has put in 240 days of work in a calender year.

3. On remand, re-enquiry was conducted. Once again the order of termination was set aside and the news was published in the newspaper. This award was challenged by petitioner herein in WP.No.28519 of 2012 and the same was dismissed on 18.10.2012. There is no stay order by this Court. Thereafter, the respondent workman had filed claim petitions and some of them had been ordered and steps were taken to execute the same. Therefore, the management has come forward with the present writ petitions.

4. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent herein had obtained orders in CP.No.45 of 2012 and the same was sought to be executed by filing EP.No.9 of 2023 and EP.No.37 of

2014. The petitioner management had challenged the proceedings in WP.No.8614 of 2024 and WP.No.8610 of 2024 respectively.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner management has not challenged the order in CP.No.45 of 2012 and the petitions filed by the petitioner management question the execution petitions have been held in favour of the respondent workman and as the allegations against the respondent workman are not proved, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.