- (1.)THE petitioner has filed this writ petition to call for the records of the proceedings seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari in C.P. No. 2 of 2003 pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
(2.)THE claim petition under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, I.D. Act) was filed by the workmen/respondents 2 to 4 herein before the Labour Court, Vellore, claiming that the termination of their services by the writ -petitioner management is void ab initio since the writ -petitioner did not comply with the provisions of S.33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act before terminating their services. According to the respondents 2 to 4, the said action of the management was void ab initio in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002 (1) L.L.N. 639, Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Ltd. v. Rant Gopal Sharma and others. In view of the same, they have sought for several amounts for the period starting from 1 June 1991 to 31 December 2000.
The claim of the respondents 2 to 4 was resisted by the writ -petitioner management by filing a counter -affidavit. In Para. 4 of the counter -affidavit, the writ -petitioner alleged that the respondents 2 to 4 have raised industrial disputes being I.D. Nos. 41 of 1995, 42 of 1995 and 210 of 1996 respectively before the Labour Court and the Labour Court dismissed the same by common award, dated 21 November 1997. Hence, the question of agitating the issue once again does not arise. It was also stated by them that the workmen/respondents 2 to 4 were not parties to the dispute I.D. No. 77 of 1989, which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and hence, the question of violation of S.33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act does not arise. It was further stated that the company itself was closed even by 27 July 1998. Under these circumstances, the writ -petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings pending before the first respondent Labour Court in C.P. No. 2 of 2003.

(3.)THE writ petition was admitted on 1 February 2005 and interim stay was granted by this Court. The respondents 2 to 4 have now filed a petition in W.V.M.P. No. 1548 of 2005 seeking to vacate the stay granted earlier. When the petition for vacating the stay came up for hearing, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing.