COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned Award, dated 30.08.2011, passed by the 1st respondent in C.P.No.11 of 2010 and I.D.No.38 of 2010 and quash the same as illegal.

2.Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

3.The case of the petitioner/Management is that the petitioner is a Printing Press, which was established in the year 1968. The second respondent was employed in the press, as an office boy, for paying electricity charges, going to post office, fetching coffee, purchasing stationary etc. The second respondent has received Rs.1,570/- per month, as consolidated salary, apart from daily travelling bata. As the second respondent was initially recommended for employment by a good friend of the partner, the petitioner/Management always shown leniency and would take him for job. Thus, the employment of the second respondent with the petitioner was not continuous, but it was only intermittent.

4. While such being the case, the second respondent approached the petitioner/Management on 28.01.2006 and requested the salary for the month of January in advance. Even though the monthly salary would be disbursed only on 5th of the every month, on sympathy, the petitioner/Management gave the entire month's salary to him. Thereafter, the second respondent did not report for duty. When the second respondent did not report for work continuously, the petitioner/ Management enquired his whereabouts and came to know that the second respondent had left to Tirupur and joined there, for higher remuneration. The second respondent had an outstanding advance of Rs.3,000/- to be repaid to the Management, when he left the employment.

5. After keeping silent for more than 3 years, the second respondent returned to his native in the year 2009. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner Management asked the second respondent for return of the advance of Rs.3,000/-, for which the second respondent has raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation failed. Against the same the second respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court in C.P.No.11 of 2011 under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. The second respondent filed a petition I.D.No.38 of 2010 before the first respondent under Section 2(a)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, to cancel the oral termination of the second respondent. Both the petitions were clubbed together and the Labour Court had passed a common order and allowed the petition filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act, directing the petitioner-Management to pay a sum of Rs.31,279/- to the second respondent and in I.D.No.38 of 2010, the petitioner Management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the second respondent, in lieu of reinstatement.

Challenging the same, the writ petitions have been filed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Management submitted that in order to prove the employment in the petitioner/ Management, no documents were marked, except Ex.P.2 - a letter given by the Partner and that will not give any right to raise the industrial dispute for non-employment. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the second respondent was working as an office boy on a temporary basis and frequently absented from duty and without any document to show that the second respondent continuously employed in the petitioner/ Management, the Labour Court mechanically passed an award, awarding compensation in liue of reinstatement, which is non est in the eye of law. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition filed against the I.D.No.38 of 2010.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that though the petitioner claimed that there were dues payable by the second respondent, in line with G.O.Ms.