(1.) THE petitioners were employees of the second respondent-Management. THEy raised a dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour III, Coimbatore. On the strength of the failure report given by him, the petitioners filed claim statement before the first respondent-Labour Court. THE claim statements were taken on file as I.D.Nos.62/97 to 70/97 and 124/97. THE specific stand of the workers in their claim statement was that they were illegally stopped from work on 24.10.1996. Such a termination was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (for short I.D.Act)
(2.) ON notice from the first respondent-Labour Court, the second respondent had filed a detailed counter statement in each of the IDs. In the counter statement dated Nil, it was their specific stand that the workers went on illegal strike on 24.04.1996 and 25.04.1996. It was a breach of contract and the question of the Management stopping the workers never arose. They also stated that there was no termination whatsoever on 24.10.1996 as alleged by the workmen.
(3.) MR.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the approach of the Labour Court was hypertechnical and there was a definite indication that the termination was on 24.04.1996. However, the learned counsel is unable to explain as to why no amendments were made to their claim statement which became the basis for deciding the lis between the parties. Even though the Labour Court is not trapped by technical rules of pleading, but in the present case, the specific issue is the termination of the petitioners on a particular date having given the date as 24.10.1996. In the absence of the petitioners filing any application for modifying the pleadings and the oral evidence let in by W.W.1 and W.W.2 did not support their case, it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned common Award.