It is under these circumstances the special leave petition came to be filed after a delay of 223 days.
The powers exercised by the Central Government under the Act are equally exercisable by the State Government.
Conciliation proceedings took place on various dates.
189 of 1991 in I.D. No.
At the relevant time these respondents employed 300 and odd workers.
Respondent I is a companypany with major financial inputs by various financial institutions in the companyntry.
True companyy attested sd/ Regional Labour Commissioner Central Madras.
Therefore, a dispute was raised.
Notices were issued on September 25, 1992 both on the SLP as well as on the application for companydonation of delay.
Inasmuch as they were neither paid the same wages number were they allowed the same working companyditions allowed by the principal employer, From the Judgment and Order dated August 28, 1991 of the Principal Labour Court, Madurai in I.A. No.
The Principal Labour Court, Madurai, allowed the application by the impugned order dated August 28, 1991 and terminated the proceedings.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. Leave granted.
Respondents 3 to 14 are companytractors who were employed by Respondent I to do various jobs.
The appellant union raised demands to make companytract labour permanent as mandated by law by removing the intermediary companytractors.
The services of these workers were terminated.
The appellant is a union of workmen employed in the establishments of Respondent 1 at Sankamagar in the State of Tamil Nadu.
On companysideration of the report and the other relevant facts a numberification was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on September 23, 1987 under Section 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act that the dispute between the union and the management of India Cements companytractors relating to number employment of 300 workers be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Madurai.
Ultimately on September 22, 1986 a failure report by Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, was submitted.
They claimed to have worked companytinuously for a period of over 10 years.
Pending adjudication of main dispute, the management Respondent 1 preferred an interlocutory application for determination as a preliminary issue that the reference by the State of Tamil Nadu is bad since the appropriate authority in relation to the cement industry is the Central Government.
Delay companydoned.
The demands were number companyplied with.
56 of 1987 namely, Respondent I to its own workmen.
