Judgment :- The petitioner is a Secretary to the Government, Small Small Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. They have come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge a common order passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court in C.P.Nos.408 of 1998 and 220, 223, 229 to 231, 319, 321 and 328 of 2000. But, however, the Writ Petitions have been confined to C.P.Nos.408 of 1998, 220, 229, 230, 231 and 319 of 2000 before the Labour Court. 2. The petitioners, who are the employees of the various Industrial Units established by the Tamil Nadu Smal Industries Limited (TANSI). The contesting respondents in each of the Writ Petitions, filed a claim statement seeking for pension. The case of the workmen were based upon an order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.1917 and 1928 of 1980 dated 18.1.198. A copy of the said judgment was filed before the Labour Court as Ex.P.1. One of the worker had examined himself as P.W.1. On the side of the TANSI one Ragupathywas examined as R.W.1. The workmen also filed 22 documents and they were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On the side of the management, 29 documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.R.1 to R.29. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that those who are directly appointed by TANSI are not eligible for pension. But, however, in that view of the matter, dismissed the Claim Petitions in respect of C.P.Nos.320, 321 and 328 of 2000 and held they are not entitled for pension. In respect of other Claim Petitions, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that they entered into service before 1965, when there was a deployment and subsequently their service was absorbed by TANSI. Therefore, since they have no option to go on voluntary to the Government of India company, they are eligible for pension and the Government Order issued in this regard denying pension for such of those involuntary transferred employees vide G.O.Ms.No.284, Finance Department dated 31.3.1980 was set aside by this Court as per Ex.P.1. 3. Therefore, the Labour Court held that since they have put in more than 10 years of service in Government Department, they are entitled for minimum pension. This common order passed by the Labour Court was on 18.11.2004. The department was represented by City Government Pleader. 4. 3. Therefore, the Labour Court held that since they have put in more than 10 years of service in Government Department, they are entitled for minimum pension. This common order passed by the Labour Court was on 18.11.2004. The department was represented by City Government Pleader. 4. A certified copy produced along with the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner had applied for copy of the order with copy application as C.A.No.1887 of 2005. But the application was made on 22.11.2004. Stamps were called for on 6.4.2005. Stamps were deposited on the same day. The copy was made ready on 13.4.2005 and it was delivered on the same day itself. If that is a case, the petitioner never approached this Court challenging the said order. On the contrary, they slept over the matter for 6 years without any justification. 5. The delay in moving this Court is sought to be explained in paragraph 11 of the affidavit, which is as follows: "11. It is submitted that we were not aware and we were not informed of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Further due to change of officials in our department, there was some communication gap in taking follow up steps in this regard. The petitioners in C.P.No.408/1998, 229 to 231, 319 of 2000 filed W.P.No.4964 of 2006 before this Honble Court for a Writ of Mandamus against the respondent herein to comply with the order passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.408 of 1998. Then only we came to know the order passed in the above impugned claim petitions. Then we contacted the officials of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited and obtained the certified copy of the above common order. Then we sought opinion from the learned Government Pleader with regard to the further steps to be taken. The learned Government Pleader gave his opinion No.780/07, dated 29.11.2007 that this is a fit case wherein the Writ Petition has to be filed challenging the said order. Immediately we have taken steps to file the above Writ Petition." 6. Therefore, it has to be seen whether this averment in paragraph 11 on the basis of the sworn affidavit made by the Additional Secretary to Government, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (E) Department is acceptable and borne out by records. Immediately we have taken steps to file the above Writ Petition." 6. Therefore, it has to be seen whether this averment in paragraph 11 on the basis of the sworn affidavit made by the Additional Secretary to Government, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (E) Department is acceptable and borne out by records. The statement that the Department came to know only when the Writ Petition in W.P.No.4964 of 2006 was filed before this Court to enforce the order of this Court cannot be accepted, since the endorsement made by the Labour Court shows the other way. The petitioner was aware of the order of the Labour Court through counsel even on 22.11.2004, when a copy application was made and the copy was made delivered on 13.4.2005. The Writ Petition came to be filed only in the year 2006. Therefore, the averment that they came to know about the order only after the Writ Petition was filed is far from the truth. In fact, to the knowledge of the deponent of the affidavit, it is a false statement. 7. Further, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, more particularly Rule 54 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Rules, the Labour Court shall communicate to the parties by registered post a gist of the order passed on such application. Further under Rule 54 (3), the Labour Court also communicate a copy of the order based on such application to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the Government either by Rule 54(2) or under Rule 54(3) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules will be aware of any such order passed by the Labour Court supplied free of cost. Even otherwise a copy application was made ready as early as 13.4.2005. Therefore, there is no justification for the petitioner to approach this Court after a period of five years from the date of the order passed by the Labour Court. If the petitioner Government is aggrieved by the order, they should have examined the considered headquarters and taken action against the Director. There is no counter saying that they were not aware of the orders when the Writ Petition was filed before this Court in the year 2006. If the petitioner Government is aggrieved by the order, they should have examined the considered headquarters and taken action against the Director. There is no counter saying that they were not aware of the orders when the Writ Petition was filed before this Court in the year 2006. Even assuming without admitting that such a contention is valid, then the knowledge of the government starts from 2006 and the reason for filing a Writ Petition in the year 2010 is not explained to the satisfaction of this Court. If the workmen have moved the Court seeking for pension for the service rendered by them and the Court also ordered notice, there is no reason as to why the Government should sleep over the matter and come to the Court with an inordinate delay with the statements, which are contrary to the records. 8. In the light of the above, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. This Court is persuaded not to order exemplary costs on the submissions made by the learned government Advocate Mr.N.Senthil Kumar. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.