The delay in executing awards does not negate entitlement, and reinstatement with continuity of service validates claims for benefits.

COMMON ORDER

The Management of Melanmai Eyakkunar, Tamil Nadu Kudineer Vadikal Variyam, Chennai, is the revision petitioner in both these revision petitions.

2.The revision petitioner challenges the order of arrest passed by the executing Court, issuing a direction to arrest the Managing Director of the revision petitioner and detain him in civil prison for disobedience of the award in I.D.No.48 of 2001.

3.I have heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.S.Mekhala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions.

4.Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/Management would first and foremost submit that the very execution petition itself filed after lapse of 23 years, from the date of award was liable to be dismissed, on the ground of delay and latches. He would further contend that the award in I.D.No.48 of 2001, which is now sought to be executed in the impugned execution proceedings, was only in favour of the Tamil Nadu Kudineer Vadikal Variya Oozhiyar Madhya Amaippu (CITU) and the said award cannot be taken advantage of by the individual respondents in these revision petitions.

5.Mr.S.Silabanan, learned Senior Counsel would further state that the Labour Court had made it clear in the award dated 24.01.2003 that though the Board has recruited 1172 employees on consolidated basis as on 27.11.2001, the date of the communication of TWAD Board, only 881 employees were eligible, being employees on consolidated basis under consolidated pay. He would further contend that the respondents, no doubt, were employees under the petitioner, but however, they had been dismissed from service for misconduct and hence, their names did not figure in the list of persons in the award. He would further state that the Labour Court had clearly directed that the employees, who attended continuous service of 480 days alone, were entitled to regularization in terms of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment) of Permanent Status of Workmen Act, 1981.

6.Relying on the same, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the respondents are attempting to belatedly implement an award passed during the period, when the respondents were admittedly not in service and had been dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel would however fairly submit that the orders of dismissal were challenged by the respondents, by raising separate industrial disputes and the Labour Court, by order dated 06.12.2010, set aside the dismissal orders of the respondents, which was impugned before the Labour Court, that is the order dated 18.11.2002. 7.Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that even though the said award in favour of the respondents became final and the respondents were reinstated, unless the respondents filed a petition for computation, the petitioner would not be in a position to ascertain the amounts, if any, due to the respondents. He would further state that there was no occasion for the petitioner to even contest the entitlement of the respondents, especially their attending continuous service for 480 days. He would further submit that taking advantage of the implementation of the awards in favour of the respondents in their respective IDs, the respondents cannot take umbrage under the original award passed in favour of the Union, especially when their names did not figure in the final list of eligible employees. He would further submit that similarly placed employees sought for confirmation and regularization and the responde