Madras High Court
Workmen Of Sholingur Textiles Ltd. vs Arbitrator (Commissioner Of Labour) ... on 10 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)IILLJ182MAD
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.
1. Aggrieved by the award of the first respondent namely Arbitrator (Commissioner of Labour, Madras), in Industrial Dispute No. A4/73555/86, dated January 31, 1988, the workmen of Sholingar Textiles, Ltd., represented by the North Arcot District Textile Workers Union, Sholingar Branch, have filed the above writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner-union is briefly stated hereunder:
The second respondent-mill have the spindlage capacity of 42620 spindles and they do not implement all the labour welfare legislations. The petitioner-union took up the issue of non-employment of certain employees by a letter dated April 22, 1985, to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madras, and talks were held before him in the conciliation proceedings B4/5007/85. When majority of workmen were in the petitioner-union, the management entered into a settlement in November 1984 with the other unions increasing the workload without increase in wages. Again withdrew strike and in view of the attitude of the management, the first respondent recorded the failure of the conciliation proceedings and sent failure report, dated April 1986, to the Government regarding the non-employment issue and the parties were advised to hold talks on other issues before the Special Deputy Commissioner of Labour. After the failure report was sent, a settlement was signed on July 10, 1986: providing the first respondent as Arbitrator and the issue of non-employment of 146 workmen alone was referred for adjudication by the Arbitrator leaving aside other workmen. These 146 workmen included 41 permanent, 12 temporary, 51 apprentices and 42 Dina Coolies. The permanent and temporary workmen were issued with charge memos and dismissal orders were issued after conducting a force enquiry. The arbitration agreement was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated September 2, 1986 in G.O. Ms. No. 1714, Labour Department. The first respondent took the case on file in Industrial Dispute No. A4/73555/86. The petitioner-union filed a claim statement for 143 workmen out of 146 workmen. The second respondent-management filed a counter- statement after filing voluminous documents containing enquiry proceedings. The first respondent suggested that the matter should be settled through talks without resorting to adjudication proceedings. As the management agreed to the suggestion, the first respondent issued an order, dated June 25, 1987, reinstating 10 workers and the said order was made as an interim award. Again on January 18, 1988, the first respondent suggested that it would be better to have a settlement in the interest of both the parties. It is further stated that in spite of their best efforts there was no meeting point as the management was not willing to reinstate workmen and was suggesting monetary compensation. In these circumstances, the first respondent suggested to break the stalemate that he would come with a compromise formula agreeable to both parties and that he would call the parties after he fully prepared the compromise formula. The case was therefore adjourned without fixing a date of next hearing. While the petitioner-union was expecting a draft compromise formula based on which a settlement might be signed, after holding talks on the draft as the basis, to their shock and surprise, they received the impugned award, dated January 31, 1988 passed by the first respondent. The impugned award is illegal and the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In any event, the impugned award cannot be sustained since the first respondent has not assigned any reason in support of his conclusion.
3. The second respondent-management has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by petitioner-union. In view of the question to be decided, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to refer the entire case of the management as averred in the present counter-affidavit.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-union as well as the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner-union, after taking me through the impugned award of the first respondent, dated January 31, 1988, would contend that in the light of the pleadings of both parties and voluminous documents filed before him, the present award, passed without assigning any or discussion, cannot be sustained. He contended that though the first respondent is an Arbitrator, his function is similar to the Labour Court, accordingly, he ought to have discussed the case of both the parties and arrived at a conclusion on merits. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-management after highlighting the entire proceedings commencing from the initiation of arbitration proceedings and the representations made by petitioner-union as well as other unions and the management, including the impugned award of the first respondent, would contend that the impugned award is a workable one and based on materials furnished by both the parties, accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition,
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is true that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated that both the petitioner-union as well as the management filed claim statement and counter statement running into several pages and also filed voluminous documents in support of their respective claim. It is equally true that by notification, dated September 2, 1986, published in G.O. Ms. No. 1714, Labour Department, on the basis of agreement reached between the management and the workmen, appointed S. Rajasubmanian, I.A.S. Commissioner of Labour, Madras, as Arbitrator. The main question that, was placed before the Arbitrator was whether the non-employment of workmen listed in schedule is justified and if not, to what relief they are entitled? It is further seen from the impugned proceedings that the parties in dispute were heard on different dates and in the course of such hearings, it is not disputed, that an interim award was passed by the first respondent on June 25, 1987 reinstating 10 workers. It is further seen (sic) that in view of controversy in issue and prolonged hearings on various dates and stages, both the parties to the dispute agreed that the first respondent Arbitrator himself would evolve certain compromise formula at his discretion and pass an appropriate award. This is clearly stated even in the preamble portion of the impugned award, particularly in Para 3 it is stated "in the hearing held by me January 18, 1988 the parties to the dispute agreed that the Arbitrator himself would evolve certain compromise formula at his discretion and pass an award...." Based on the agreement of both the parties permitting the Arbitrator to evolve a compromise formula at his discretion, after perusing the documents and statements hearing the parties and also taking note of the nature of non-employment of all the workmen the first respondent has passed the impugned award. It is not the case of the petitioner-union alone participated in the award proceedings. The other unions were also heard. It is further seen from the award that the Arbitrator has called for a detailed report from the Collector every week since 1984 on the law and order situation. It is further clear that out of 146 workers, as the result of the interim award reinstating 10 workers, the strength has been reduced to 136 workers. During the course of the proceeding, three persons namely, S. Pichandi (S. No. 38), C. Jayaraman (S. No. 43) and K. Perumal (S.No. 101) have withdrawn their claims in view of the fact that they have settled the issue with the management. After classifying the remaining workers, namely, 132 workers, the first respondent has directed reinstatement of 6 workmen out of 27 in Category I (Permanent workmen). Among the temporary workmen numbering 11, the Arbitrator has directed reinstatement of three workmen. With regard to 48 apprentice workmen, he has directed the management to take 12 as apprentices on daily stipend of Rs. 8.50 per day and the terms and conditions applicable to apprentices. The Arbitrator has also directed the management that the said workers shall be reinstated within one week from the date of publication of the award. With regard to 62 workmen, the Arbitrator has provided monetary relief and also directed the management to disburse the said amount within a week from the date of publication of the award. In respect of 46 workmen, it is stated by the Arbitrator that no evidence was let in before him to prove the fact of unemployment, accordingly, has not granted any relief.
6. The learned Counsel for the management has also brought to my notice that the management has fully complied with the award of the Arbitrator and also paid compensation as directed. He also produced and placed the receipts signed by the workmen concerned in the form of a typed set.
7. Taking note of all the above aspects, particularly in the light of statement of facts recorded by the first respondent authorising the Arbitrator to evolve certain compromise formula at his discretion and pass an award, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-union. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-union by drawing my attention to the following decisions, namely:
(i) Rajendra Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration and Ors.
(ii) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steels Tubes Mazdoor Sabha ; and
(iii) Management of T.U.C.S. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labour and Ors. 1986-II-LLJ-225 (Mad-DB) would contend that inasmuch as the Arbitrator is functioning like Labour Court and in the light of materials placed before him. ought to have considered their claim and passed an award by furnishing reason or reasons. After going through the above mentioned decisions, I am of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the settled legal position. However, in our case. I have already demonstrated that in spite of filing voluminous pleadings and documents, in view of the nature of dispute that too after prolonged discussions, both the parties have authorised the Arbitrator to pass an amicable award. I have also referred to the salient features in the award of the first respondent.
8. In such circumstances, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned award of the first respondent. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.