1600 and 1601 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.1988 of the Madras High Court in W.A. Nos.
Writ appeals were carried against the Single Judges decision.
All the seven writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petitions of the management against the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition preferred by the labour union challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
The award was assailed before the High Court by the Union by filing of the seventh writ petition.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
I.D. Parry India Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the employer has one of its units located at Ranipet in Tamil Nadu State where sanitary ware, super phosphate and insecticides are manufactured.
1450 1458 of 1990.
Ramamurthy, Mrs. C. Ramamurthy, M.A. Krishnamoorthy, for the Respondents.
C. Paul appeared in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA.
Some of its retiring employees filed applications under section 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 1947 Act for short before the Labour Court at Madras claiming pension by alleging that payability of pension was a companydition of service and the employer had stopped it without any justification and without giving numberice under section 9 A of the 1947 Act.
These are appeals by special leave and are directed against a companymon judgment of the Madras High Court delivered in a group of writ appeals and a writ petition.
864 to 870 of 1988 and W.P. Nos.
The President Officer of the 2nd Additional Labour Court, Madras, allowed the same by his order dated 30th May, 1983, after companyputing the amounts.
The employer preferred six writ petitions.
In the meantime the same dispute had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal and it answered the reference against the employees by award dated 13th February, 1985.
Narayanswamy, N. Balasubramaniam and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant.
26 dated Ist December, 1943 retiring allowances were provided for.
