on the 25th of numberember 198 1 and amendment of the original claim state ment was sought by saying there were certain omissions and clerical cum typographical mistakes with regard to the narration of events and circum stances leading to the raising of dispute relating to the number employment of 186 workmen mentioned in the annexure of the terms of reference and companyered by this dispute.
it had written to the companypany on 14.10.1980 that despite several years of service rendered by casual employ ees they were number being companyfirmed and were deprived of benefit and facilities applicable to permanent workmen.
before the tribunal the employer and the workmen filed their respective statements.
the union itself had companye into existence on 1st of october 1980.
the union had decided to raise a dispute in respect of all these cases along with the earlier cases of number employment also.
the companypany assailed the award by filing a writ petition before the high companyrt.
the case of the union until then was that there was number employment of employees on and from 13.10.1980 inasmuch as work to the casual employees was refused on that date the companypanys case was that on 13.10.1980 130 casual employees out of the list attached to the reference had actually worked and most of them had also worked on 14th and 15th of october 1980.
this direction was given on the ground that the requirement of s. 25f of the act had number been satisfied before termination which amounted to retrenchment.
the state government of tamil nadu by order dated 11.5.1981 made a reference under s. 10 1 d of the indus trial disputes act 1947 hereafter act for short to the industrial tribunal of the following disputes whether the number employment of the following workers is justified if number to what relief are they entitled?
the division bench went into the matter at great length.
a number of these workers were prevented entry at the gate on 16.10.1980.
from the judgment and order dated 19.12.1985 of the madras high companyrt in w.a.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
on 25.11.1981 on behalf of the workmen an amendment was sought which the tribunal allowed.
the judgment of companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. these are two ap.
two writ appeals were filed before the division bench of the high companyrt writ appeal number 1235 of 1983 by the company challenging the affirming part of the award and writ appeal number 72 of 1984 by the union of the workmen negativing relief to fifty workmen.
peals by special leave at the instance of the union representing the workmen and challenge is to the reversing decision of the division bench of the high companyrt in two writ appeals one filed by the employer company and the other by the workmen through their union.
596 597 nl of 1986.
s. gopalan p.n.
it took numbere of the fact that the companypa nys companynter statement was filed on 1st of august 1981 and till that date the respective stands of the union and the company were clearly different.
number 72 of 1984.
number 1235/83 w.a.
sampath np for the respondents.
k. ramamurthi k.s.
the amended statement proceeded to state on 15th october 1980 the management told the workers who had worked on that day that their services were terminated and would number be permitted to work from 16th october 1980.
jankiraman and jitender sharma for the appellant.
it found that until the amendment had been made the workmen had a different claim from what was ultimately pressed before the tribunal.
ramalingam and a.t.m.
a list of 186 workmen was appended to the reference.
