Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation ... vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies ... on 4 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)CTC564
ORDER
1. By consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent states on instructions that no work relief is granted to any of the unions operating in the respondent's corporation. The main grievance of the petitioners was that the benefit given to some other unions had been denied to it. That grievance cannot survive any longer.
2. On the larger questions of right to obtain work relief, this Court has time and again stated that no such right can be claimed from the employer on the ground that the workmen have become office bearers of trade unions. The workmen are employed in any industries to perform work and not to absent themselves and claim benefits despite no work having been performed by them. Working for their union is not the same thing as work in the industry to contribute to the total production, and performing the duty attached to the post of which the person is appointed.
3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary T.N.E.B. Accounts Subordinate Union v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, made observations to the same fact. It was observed therein "It is one thing to say that workmen should have the recognition of their trade union and mother thing to say that the office bearers of trade unions though workmen must be totally absolved from doing their duty and service to the employer on the simple ground that they are office bearers of the unions."
4. The Division Bench also held that Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the several entries in Schedule IV of the Act are wholly inapplicable to any alleged right to work relief. No such right is recognised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner Union is not entitled to any injunction to restrain the respondents from withdrawing the concession which it may have granted to some other workmen who were office bearers to Have the benefits of attendance even without working. The policy of the employer hitherto was clearly a misguided policy. The employer instead of ensuring that production is maximised and the productivity enhanced had been a party to the wastage of public funds by allowing its employees to claim benefits without doing any work.
5. This writ petition, is, therefore, without any merits and is dismissed. Consequently W.M.Ps. are closed.