AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner is the Commissioner for Devakottai Panchayat Union. In this writ petition challenge is made to the order passed by the Labour
Court in C.P.No. 64 of 1997 dated 25.08.2005.
By the afore-said order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs. 1,27,357/-in favour of the first respondent and Rs. 1,09,955/-in favour of the
second respondent. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed.
The writ petition was admitted on 05.01.2006. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the aggrieved
workman had filed a vacate stay application together with the supporting counter affidavit. However, the vacate stay application was not ordered
since a query was raised as to whether a Noon Meal Organiser can file a claim petition before the Labour Court. Therefore, the main writ petition
was directed to be posted for disposal.
When this writ petition came up for hearing on 11.07.2011, Justice Vinod K.Sharma directed the parties to file translated copies of the Tamil
documents. He also recorded on 25.07.2011 that despite directions, the petitioner had not filed any translated copies of the Tamil documents, in
spite of a constitutional imperative under Article 348 of the Constitution. The learned Judge also recorded that such a direction was not complies
with. It only showed that the petitioner is not interested in arguing the matteRs. Out of desperation, the learned Judge directed to post the matter in
the month of October 2011. The attitude of the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly condemnable and reprehensible.
In any event, the contention raised by the petitioner in challenging the impugned order of the Labour Court was misconceived. First of all, the
petitioner had not filed a certified copy of the impugned order obtained from the Labour Court. On the contrary, the petitioner filed a gist order,
which is supplied free of costs by the Labour Court to the concerned parties and it contains only the operative portion of the order made by the
Labour Court, which is similar to a decree. Unless and until the order containing reasons is produced, this Court cannot issue a Writ in the nature
of Certiorari without knowing the reasons weighed with the Labour Court, while passing the final order.
The petitioner Panchayat did not even make an application for a certified copy of the order made by the Labour Court. Not only the gist order
was produced, but an interim stay was obtained on some untenable grounds. The contention that the workman cannot claim wages on par with a
Junior Assistant based on a Government Order cannot be determined in this writ petition in the absence of any proper writ petition filed challenging
the order of the Labour Court.
To add insult to the injury, both the counsels as well as the parties have kept the writ petition defective by not even making the documents
available proper translated copies in English. Such a conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Since there is no proper writ
petition filed challenging the order of the Labour Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
By an order dated 21.07.2009, the writ petition as against the second respondent had already been dismissed for default and no steps also
were taken for cancelling the dismissal order. In the absence of proper and necessary parties before this Court and since certified copies of the
impugned order was not made available to this Court, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs.