Judgment :- (Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order dated 24.01.2006 passed in Diary No.99 of 2006 in I.D.No.278 of 1989 and C.P.No.224 of 1989 and Diary No.100 of 2006 in C.P.No.545 of 2002 on the file of Labour Judge, Coimbatore.) Common Order: Tulya Alloy Castings Limited, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated 24.1.2006 raising the question of maintainability of the review petitions, has filed the above revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts are as follows: (a) The first respondent in both revisions, one A.M. Dhandapani was a worker of the petitioner, Tulya Alloy Castings Limited. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service on 08.10.1988. By common award dated 25.09.1992, passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.278 of 1989 and C.P.No.224 of 1989, the Labour Court declared his dismissal from service as illegal and ordered re-instatement with continuity of service and full backwages and further directed to pay Rs.870/- as bonus to him for the year 1987-1988. The said common award was published in the Government gazette dated 03.12.1992. (b) Against the said common award, the petitioner Management filed Writ Petition Nos.3215 and 3216 of 1993 before this Court. This Court remanded the matter back to the file of Labour Court for fresh disposal. The Labour Court by award dated 26.09.2001, again directed the Management to re-instate him with continuity of service and full backwages. The second award was also published in the Government gazette on 26.09.2001 and the same was communicated by the Department of Labour and Employment, Government of Tamil Nadu in letter dated 11.01.2002 to the Management. (c) The workman filed claim petition in C.P.No.545 of 2002 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore for direction to the employer to pay a sum of Rs.4,96,886/- for the period from October 1988 to May, 2002 along with interest at 15%. The Management by filing counter affidavit contested the claim petition. The Labour Court by order dated 06.04.2004, allowed the claim petition and declared that the workman is entitled to receive the amount as prayed for in the petition and directed the Management to pay Rs.4,96,886/- within two months from the date of order. The Management by filing counter affidavit contested the claim petition. The Labour Court by order dated 06.04.2004, allowed the claim petition and declared that the workman is entitled to receive the amount as prayed for in the petition and directed the Management to pay Rs.4,96,886/- within two months from the date of order. Since the employer deliberately failed to comply with the award, the workman was constrained to sent an application on 30.05.2005 as per Section 33 C-1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act") requesting to issue recovery certificate for the amount of Rs.4,96,886/- payable to him by his employer. (d) By proceedings dated 19.10.2005, the Government has issued recovery certificate as per Section 33-C(1) of the Act, vide Government Order (D) No.1206 dated 19.10.2005 and thereby the Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Labour and Employment asked the District Collector of Coimbatore District to recover the amount of Rs.4,96,886/- from the management as arrears of land revenue and to give the same to him. The Collector was also directed to submit his report to the Government. The said communication was sent to the District Collector, to the Management and to the workman. (e) In view of the inaction on the part of the Collector, the workman made a representation on 05.12.2005 to execute the order of recovery. On receipt of the said representation, the District Collector sent the same to the Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North) to take action. However, no action has been taken. Hence, the workman made representations to the Tahsildar on 27.12.2005 and 07.02.2006. Even after the said representations, the Tahsildar did not take any action. In view of the same, the workman filed W.P.No.10240 of 2006 before this Court and by order dated 13.04.2006, notice was sent to the Tahsildar to comply with the order immediately to avoid contempt. Since there was no response, the workman has filed contempt application against the Tahsildar. At this juncture, the Management filed I.A. Diary Nos.99 and 100 of 2006, seeking to review the orders in I.D.No.278 of 1989 and C.P.No.224 of 1989. The Labour Court, Coimbatore, by the impugned order questioned the maintainability of the above review petitions. Hence, the Management has filed the present revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Mrs. The Labour Court, Coimbatore, by the impugned order questioned the maintainability of the above review petitions. Hence, the Management has filed the present revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as the Labour Court is being presided over by a District Judge, it is a Court vested with inherent powers like a civil Court and the review petitions filed by the Management are maintainable. She further contended that the Labour Court ought to have numbered the review petitions and afforded opportunity to the Management to put forth certain valid points. In support of her argument, she relied on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Umed Singh vs. Ashok Kotel reported in 2004 (2) L.L.N. 1000. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that in view of the conduct of the Management and of the fact that after passing of award on two occasions, the same having been published in the Government gazette and that the orders were passed by the Government for recovery of the amount through the District Collector/Tahsildar, the review petitions are not maintainable and in any event, the Management has n