C O M M O N O R D E R

W.P.No.14278 of 2014 is filed by the workman against the second respondent Management, aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.294 of 2005, wherein the labour Court, while directing the Management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service has declined to grant back wages.

2. W.P.No.19813 of 2014 is filed by the Management against the workman aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.294 of 2005, whereunder the labour Court has directed the Management to reinstate the workman with continuity of service.

3. Since both the writ petitions are filed challenging the same award, they are being disposed of by way of a common order.

4. During the course of discussion, instead of mentioning as the petitioner and respondent, workman and management are being mentioned.

5. The workman was employed in the second respondent Management in the year 1991. No Union was functioning in the respondent Management. Some of the senior workers used to make demands and hold talks with the Management in respect of revision of wages and other conditions of service. The workman has also taken initiative and took leave during the course of those discussions. In the year 2004, workman has demanded revision of wages and improvement on other conditions of service. The Management has assured the workman that they will increase the wages and will also improve the conditions of service. However, the Management has not kept up the promise.

6. The workman was transferred from Tool Room Section to Stores by an order dated 28/1/2005. The second respondent Management refused to hold the talks. The workman went on stay in strike protesting the transfer of workman and also have increased the wages and other benefits. The Proprietor of the second respondent Management called all the workers and requested to call off the strike. The workman continued to work in the Tool Room Section where he was working earlier, however, he was not assigned with any work during the month of February 2005.

7. The workman was placed under suspension, as per the order dated

1/3/2005 on the ground that workman has not reported to the Stores to which Section the workman was transferred. The workman has submitted his explanation on 3/3/2005 and denied the charges. An enquiry was ordered. Management has appointed an Advocate for conducting an enquiry. Enquiry Officer submitted the report, after holding the enquiry that the workman is guilty of all the charges. The Management has accepted the same and workman was asked to submit his explanation. The explanation was offered. Finally, the workman was dismissed from service on 11/6/2005.

8. The workman has raised Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D.No.294 of 2005. Initially, first respondent labour Court has passed orders in respect of preliminary issue holding that enquiry was not done in a fair and proper manner, thereby, opportunity was given to both sides to lead evidence.

9. On behalf of Management, 16 documents were marked and two witnesses were examined. On behalf of workman, four documents were marked and workman was examined to rebut the evidence of the Management. The labour Court has ultimately passed the award on 17/7/2013, setting aside the dismissal order, dated 11/6/2005 directing the Management to reinstate the workman and held that workman is not entitled for backwages. Aggrieved by the same, workman has filed W.P.No.14278 of 2018.

10. Management has filed W.P.No.19813 of 2014, wherein in the affidavit it is stated that the respondent Management is engaged in manufacturing of Aluminium diecastings and has employed 22 employees at the relevant time for manufacturing activity. As per the practice and certified orders, workman and supervisors are liable to be transferred from one Department to other Department basing on exigency. On 28/1/2005, as there was an urgent work in the Stores Department, workman was tran