Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1385 (MAD)

MANOGARAN M. v. MARK BEEDI MANUFACTURERS

2002-11-12

E.PADMANABHAN

body2002
ORDER : E. Padmanabhan, J.—Heard Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. T.R. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for E.S. Govindan and H. Shameem for the first respondent. 2. The petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the order of the second respondent-the Labour Court dated November 19, 1997 made in C.P. Nos. 290 to 300 and 323 of 1996 and direct the respondents to pay the dearness allowance as per G.O. Ms. No. 1093 Labour and Employment dated June 9, 1989 to all the beedi makers as claimed in the claim petition and directed in the said Government Order. 3. Considerable time was granted to argue the writ petition. Thereafter, Mr. Arunachalam, learned counsel for the writ petitioners referred to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and: contended that if the respondent-Management pays dearness allowance @ 2.5 paise per day as directed in G.O.D. No. 676 dated August 23, 1993 and G.O. 2D No. 14 respectively dated August 23, 1993 and April 20, 1998, the: petitioners will be satisfied. 4. Mr. Arunachalam further contends that the respondents may be directed to pay the difference if any, in this respect, as may be worked out by the respondents. 5. The following passage in the counter affidavit is being relied upon: "I state that the petitioners herein filed C.P. Nos. 340 of 1994 to 353 of 1994 and 359/1994 and 371/1994 before the Labour Court, Vellore, seeking the very same relief as in the present claim petitions CP Nos. 290 to 297 of 1996 and 323 of 1996. CP Nos. 340 of 1994 etc. were heard by the Labour Court and by the order dated June 20, 1995, the Labour Court, Vellore, was pleased to dismiss all the petitions regarding the fact that the G.O. Ms. No. 1093 was rescinded and superseded by G.O. No. 676 dated August 23, 1993. The above order of the Labour Court was not questioned. The petitioners herein are bound by the said order and cannot re-agitate the same by way of fresh claim petitions. The petitioners herein are bound by the said decision by principle of res judicata and they cannot now maintain this writ petition. The above order of the Labour Court was not questioned. The petitioners herein are bound by the said order and cannot re-agitate the same by way of fresh claim petitions. The petitioners herein are bound by the said decision by principle of res judicata and they cannot now maintain this writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that they had not divulged the disposal of the said petition in the writ petition. The entire writ petition proceeds on the footing that the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP Nos. 12150 of 1989 etc. are not binding on the writ petitioners G.O. No. 1093 was superseded by G.O.D. No. 676 dated August 23, 1993 and G.O.2D No. 14 dated April 20, 1998. The petitioners are being paid in accordance with the abovesaid G.O. right from the year 1989." 6. While recording the statement made by the first respondent Management, the first respondent is directed to pay the difference in dearness allowance between 2.5 paise and 1 paise per day if the said difference has not already been paid. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Time to pay three months from today. No costs.