Madras High Court
The Workmen Of Shri Munipachaiappa ... vs Shri Munipachaiappa Textiles Pvt. Ltd on 18 August, 2011
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2011
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.Nos.3412 of 2005, 16241 OF 2007 AND 21763 and 21764 of 2009
and WPMP.No.3836 of 2005
W.P.NO.3412 OF 2005
The Workmen of Shri Munipachaiappa Textiles (P) Ltd.,
Through United Labour Federation
Rep. by its Vice President ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Shri Munipachaiappa Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Ayyappedu, Sholingar 631 102.
Vellore District.
2.Mr.A.M. Munuswami. ... Respondents
W.P.NO.16241 OF 2007
United Labour Federation
Rep. by its General Secretary ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Shri Munipachaiappa Textiles Mills Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
Iyyappedu Village, Thiruthani Taluk.
2.The Factory Manager
Sri Munipachaiyappa Textile Mills Ltd.,
Iyyapedu Village, Thiruthani Taluk. ... Respondents
W.P.NOS.21763 AND 21764 OF 2009
United Labour Federation
Rep. by its President ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Department (B2) Labour & Employment
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2.The Management of
Sri Munipachaiappa Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
Iyyapedu Village, Sholingar 631 102. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.3412 of 2005: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the respondent is not entitled to proceed with the disciplinary action as against the members of the petitioner's Union without payment of subsistence allowance after 01.01.2005 and without paying the salary of December 2004 and direct the respondent Management not to proceed with the disciplinary action in respect of workmen listed in the annexure.
Prayer in W.P.No.16241 of 2007: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the respondents are not entitled to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the members of the petitioner Union named in Annexure I filed herewith pursuant to the charge memos issued respectively to them without paying them subsistence allowance or lifting the illegal and unjustified lock out against them unconditionally.
Prayer in W.P.NoS.21763 AND 21764 of 2009: Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with G.O.(D) No.443, Labour and Employment (B2) Department, dated 29.07.2009 and G.O.(D) No.445, Labour and Employment (B2) Department, dated 29.07.2009 respectively and quash the same and direct the first respondent to refer the dispute declined to be referred for adjudication.
For Petitioner in
W.P.No.3412 / 2005 : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel
for Mr.P.Chandrasekaran
For Petitioner in
W.P.No.16241 / 2007 : Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan
For Respondents 1 & 2 in
W.P.Nos.3412 / 2005
and 16241 / 2007 and :
For Respondent 2 in
W.P.Nos.21762 & 21764
of 2009 : Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Venkataraman
For Respondent 1 in
W.P.Nos.21763 & 21764
of 2009 : Mr.M.C.Swamy
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in all these writ petitions is a Trade Union, namely, United Labour Federation, registered under the Trade Unions Act. Majority of workmen of the respondent Textile Mills, namely, Munipachaiappa Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., are the members of the petitioner Union. The workmen employed in various industries are also members of the petitioner Union.
2.According to the petitioner, when majority of the workmen of the Munipachaiappa Textile Mills, joined petitioner Union, the management took coercive steps against those workmen to curb the trade union activities of the petitioner Union. Pursuant to the same, 63 activists of the petitioner Union were denied employment from 24.08.2004 by way of lock out.
3.According to the petitioner Union, these 63 workmen alone were locked out without any written orders. The petitioner Union made several demands and conducted agitations to lift the lock out of those 63 workmen. When the management, failed to lift the lock out, the petitioner Union resorted to strike from 2.1.05 demanding the lifting of lock out in respect of 63 workmen.
4.According to the petitioner Union, the strike was called off on 24.10.2005. Even after the calling off the strike by the petitioner Union, the workmen were not allowed to work.
5.It is their case that apart from 63 workmen, who were already on lock out, other workmen were also not given work from 24.10.2005 when the workmen called off the strike. However, it is admitted by both the sides, after some time, workmen were taken in a phased manner, barring those 63 workmen. Some of the workmen were dismissed from service after holding enquiries and those workmen raised Industrial Dispute individually and those cases could be pursued by the individual workman concerned. Both side agreed that the dispute relating to denial of work to 129 workmen for a certain period after 24.10.2005 till they were provided employment in a phased manner has to be resolved. The industrial dispute relating to those 129 workmen was not referred for adjudication by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.443, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.07.2009 and the same is questioned in W.P.No.21763 of 2009.
6.That apart, according to the management, among 63 workmen, they issued notices to 16 workmen and they were given charge memos individually alleging that they were unauthorisedly absent and that they did not report for duty.
7.The petitioner Union filed W.P.No.3412 of 2005 and W.P.No.16241 of 2007 seeking for a direction not to proceed with the enquiry in respect of those 16 workmen without payment of subsistence allowance.
8.It is the case of the petitioner Union that those 16 workmen were denied employment but they were willing to report for duty and only the management denied work to them.
9.The issue relating to the lock out of 63 workmen were not referred to by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.445, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.7.2009 for adjudication by Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the date from which these workmen were locked out, was not stated clearly. The said G.O.Ms.No.445 is put to challenge in W.P.No.21764 of 2009.
10.Though there are several disputes to be resolved between the petitioner Union and the management, with a view to put an end to the strained relationship between the petitioner Union and the management, on consent, the main disputes have been short listed by this Court, namely,
(i)The issue relating to the alleged lock out of 63 workmen from 24.8.2004.
(ii)The issue relating to denial of work to 129 workmen for a certain period.
11.The petitioner Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer in their letter, dated 17.05.2005 relating to the lock out imposed on the 63 workmen. It is categorically stated that these 63 workmen were under illegal lock out from August 2004. Since it is stated that these workmen were illegally locked out from August 2004, the first respondent is not correct in declining to refer the dispute on the ground that the date of lock out has not been stated clearly.
12.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management has also fairly submitted that the issue relating to the alleged lock out of 63 workmen from August 2004 could be referred for adjudication by a competent Industrial Tribunal.
13.The learned Senior Counsel for the Management has also submitted that as to whether some of the workmen were employed or not could also be gone into in the Industrial Dispute relating to the lock out of 63 workmen, as the very employment of some of them are disputed.
14.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Union has submitted that all the 63 workmen including 16 workmen against whom charge memos given were not permitted to join duty and they are in fact on lock out. 15.The learned Senior Counsel for the management submitted that the management could not proceed with the disciplinary action against those 16 persons, since no disciplinary action has taken place pursuant to the interim order of this Court.
16.The learned Senior Counsel for the management submitted that the industrial dispute relating to lock out of 63 workmen including 16 workmen could be referred for adjudication, without prejudice to their right to raise all issues including the very employment of some of them.
17.In these circumstances, the G.O.No.445, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.07.2009 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The respondent Government is directed to refer the industrial dispute relating to the lock out of 63 workmen from August 2004 by the respondent Management for adjudication by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal at Chennai. Parties are at liberty to raise all issues before the Industrial Tribunal, on reference.
18.Since the dispute relating to the lock out of 63 workmen is now referred for adjudication, it is agreed by both side that there is no need for any further adjudication in W.P.Nos.3412 of 2005, 16241 of 2007 and 21764 of 2009.
19.Now the only remaining issue is relating to the non employment of 129 workmen for a certain period after 24.10.2005 until they were given employment in a phased manner.
20.The learned Senior Counsel for the Management has fairly submitted that the issue relating to the alleged non employment of 129 workmen from 24.10.2005 until those workmen were given work could also be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
21.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Union submits that in the impugned G.O.No.443, dated 29.7.2009, the first issue therein no longer survives. As far as the second issue, which relates to 155 workmen, is concerned, among 155 workmen, the Industrial Dispute now survives only in respect of 129 workmen relating to the alleged non employment for a period from 24.10.2005 until they were provided employment in a phased manner and therefore, the matter may be referred for adjudication in respect of 129 workmen, whose list is enclosed along with this order.
22.Accordingly, the impugned order in G.O.No.443, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.07.2009 is also set aside as far as the second issue is concerned.
23.In the result, the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu is hereby directed to refer the industrial dispute relating to lock out of 63 workmen from 24.08.2004 and also the industrial dispute relating to non-employment of 129 workmen from 24.10.2005 until they were provided employment in a phased manner, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
24.With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
RNB/TK To The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Department (B2) Labour & Employment Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
ENCLOSURE TO W.P.Nos.3412 of 2005, 16241 OF 2007 AND 21763 and 21764 of 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------ LIST OF 129 WORKMEN, WHOSE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED FOR ADJUDICATION
------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl.No. Name of the Workmen Sl.No. Name of the Workmen 1 S.Malithi 24 K.Sanjeevi 2 A.Srinivasan 25 P.Sabapathy 3 J.Baskar 26 M.Perumal 4 R.Dhandapani 27 S.Muniyammal 5 P.Lalitha 28 M.Gopi 6 M.Vijayan 29 C.Shanthi 7 K.Jayanthi 30 K.Ranganathan 8 A.Veeraragavan 31 R.G.Mannar 9 M.Logan 32 M.R.Mohana 10 S.Kannappan 33 M.Indira 11 G.Manesan 34 M.Jansirani 12 A.Sekar 35 N.Kuppan 13 Dhillibabu 36 T.Gribabu 14 Perumal 37 E.Prakash 15 Suresh 38 K.Raghu 16 Kumar 39 R.Gopi 17 Narasimman 40 M.S.Muniyammal 18 T.Venda 41 Shanthi 19 M.Poongavanam 42 Ambika 20 Vani 43 Amala 21 Sujatha 44 Malathi 22 Prabavathi 45 Vasanthi 23 Radha 46 Sudha 47 Venda 76 Dhanalakshmi 48 Lakshmi 77 Gowri 49 Nathiya 78 Meena 50 Rekha 79 Vinobha 51 Thilaga 80 Kumari 52 Shanthammal 81 Jayalalitha 53 Anjali 82 Jayanthi 54 Rthiyammal 83 Muniyammal 55 Parvathi 84 Anjali 56 Gunalakshmi 85 Bharathi 57 Shellamerri 86 Nathiya 58 Sowanthari 87 Ambika 59 Bawviya 88 Lakshmi 60 Reka 89 Saritha 61 Chithra 90 Sarala 62 Karpagam 91 Thiruvatha 63 Geetha 92 Rajathi 64 Tamilarasi 93 Chithra 65 Usha 94 Nathiya 66 Geetha 95 Rosi 67 Thangammal 96 Nagammal 68 Nathiya 97 Rani 69 Thulasi 98 Jayasudha 70 Janaki 99 Durga 71 Chithra 100 Sarala 72 R.Thilaga 101 A.Nithya 73 S.Nirmal 102 V.Kumari 74 P.Gayathri 103 S.Sopana 75 N.Jayalakshmi 104 M.Sakila 105 C.Krishnaveni 118 S.Thenmozhi 106 P.Sudha 119 K.Rajeswari 107 M.Reka 120 Deepa 108 M.Therosa 121 Sakila 109 M.Kavitha 122 Sujatha 110 Shiyamala 123 C.Saranya 111 Radha 124 S.Kuppammal 112 Maragatham 125 C.Sangeetha 113 Amirtham 126 K.Gandhimathi 114 Govinthammal 127 S.Malathi 115 Kumari 128 S.Kanimozhi 116 Sowmiya 129 K.Prema 117 K.Kannappan RNB TK