Madras High Court
The Dhanalakshmi Mills Workers And vs Dhanalakshmi Mills Limited on 24 September, 2008
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J.Mukhopadhaya, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.9.2008
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
WRIT APPEAL Nos.2349 of 2005 and 1979 and 2096 of 2001
and
WRIT PETITION Nos.4106 of 2003, 39506 of 2004 and
879 of 2006
AND
W.A.M.P.Nos.158 of 2007, 4317 of 2005,
4318 of 2005 and 365 of 2007 in W.A.No.2349 of 2005,
W.A.M.P.No.16056 of 2001 and 683 of 2002
in W.A.No.1979 of 2001,
W.P.M.P.No.5182 of 2003 in W.P.No.4106 of 2003,
W.P.M.P.Nos.15887 and 15888 of 2006 and 47079 and 47080 of 2004 in W.P.No.39506 of 2004
and
W.P.M.P.No.1020 of 2006 in W.P.No.879 of 2006
The Dhanalakshmi Mills Workers and
Staff Union,
B.S.Sundaram Road,
E.S.Mahal Compound,
Tiruppur-641 601. .. Appellant in W.A.No.2349 of 2005
vs.
1. Dhanalakshmi Mills Limited,
130, B.S.Sundaram Road,
Tiruppur-638 601
by its Managing Director.
2. Board of Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction,
21st Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhavan,
1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110 001.
3. State Bank of India,
Central Office, PB No.12,
Madama Cama Road,
Mumbai-400 021.
4. Industrial Development Bank of India,
IDBI Tower, Cuffa Parade, Mumbai-5.
5. Industrial Investment Bank of India,
A.G.Tower-4th Floor,
125/1, Park Street, Culcutta-700 017.
6. ESI Corporation,
ESIC Regional Office,
Rajendra Palace,
Rajendra Bhawan, New Delhi.
7. The Commissioner,
CPFC Hudco Vishala,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
8. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and
Khadi Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
9. Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board,
Chennai-2 by its Chairman.
10. The Secretary,
Industries Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-9.
11. The Coimbatore District Cotton Mills
Labour Union, Regd.No.2658,
279, Kumaran Street,
Tiruppur-639 601.
12. The Coimbatore District Cotton Mills
Employees Union (INTUC), Reg.No.570,
Dhanalakshmi Mills Branch,
130, B.S.Sundaram Road, Tiruppur-639 601.
13. The Director of Income Tax (Recovery),
Mayur Bhavan, Connaught Place,
New Delhi. .. Respondents in W.A.No.2349 of 2005
Writ Appeal No.2349 of 2005 against the order of the single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No.34935 of 2004, dated 29.11.2005.
For appellant in W.A.No.2349 of 2005 :
Mr.R.Sankara Subbu
For respondent-1 in W.A.No.2349 of 2005:
Mr.Ravi for M/s.Gupta & Ravi (caveator)
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J As all the Writ Appeals/Writ Petitions have been preferred by Dhanalakshmi Mills Workers and Staff Union (for short, 'the Union'), against the Management of Dhanalakshmi Mills (for short, 'the Management'), they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment, though those Writ Appeals/Writ Petitions arise out of different order(s) passed by this Court/Labour Court.
2. The respondent-Management, being a Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, had two Units, namely 'A' Mills, which is a spinning Unit and 'B' Mills, which is a weaving unit, both situated at Tiruppur, within a radius of 500 metres.
The working of 'B' Mills weaving unit, became uneconomic due to various reasons, which resulted in continuous loss from 1981-82 onwards to an extent of Rs.626 lakhs as on 1992-93. In the circumstances, the Management of the Mills, after holding several rounds of talks, at the bi-partite level with the workmen during 1991-92, suggested curtailment of weaving capacity and providing alternative employment to 'B' Mills workmen in 'A' Mills, but the same did not fructify. Due to unprecedented textile crisis in the first half of 1992-93, coupled with accumulated loss in 'B' Mills, which resulted in complete erosion of the net worth of the Company, which forced the Management to apply for closure of 'B' Mills weaving unit, by application dated 27.7.1992, under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'the I.D. Act') with effect from 24.10.1992.
The production of 'B' Mills came to a grinding halt since August 1992 due to disconnection of power supply for non-payment of electricity charges and also accumulation of stocks of exportable sateen cloth, which could not be exported due to non-availability of export quota to the E.E.C. countries.
At the time of closure of 'B' Mills weaving unit, there were 432 workers including staff including staff and apprentices, while there were 1,143 workers in 'A' Mills including staff, apprentices, temporary workers etc. The application of the Management for permission to close down 'B' Mills, was rejected by the Commissioner of Labour on 16.9.1992; therefore, the Management preferred a Review Application before the State of Tamil Nadu and by G.O.(D).No.250, dated 6.4.1993 issued from Labour and Employment Department, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in its order on review, came to the conclusion that the various claims of the Management required further consideration and since the Government was not in a position to appreciate the evidence and all other relevant factors, the matter was referred for adjudication of the following issue before the Special Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Madras (for short, 'the Tribunal'):
"Whether the demand of Management of Danalakshmi Mills Limted, Tiruppur to close down their 'B' Mill including all machineries, accessories and other installations in the weaving preparatory section in the premises of the 'A' Mills at Tiruppur, is justified and to what relief, the Management and the workmen would be entitled to?"
In the meantime, the Management signed a Memorandum of Understanding under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, with various trade unions representing the workmen of 'B' Mills weaving unit, except the appellant-writ petitioner-Union on 9.12.1992, for re-deployment of 'B' Mills weaving workers, in 'A' Mills, consequent upon which, about 139 workmen got re-deployment in 'A' Mills spinning unit, without any loss of wages or break in service. About 31 workers and staff of 'B' Mills left the services by way of retirement, resignation etc., leaving a balance 263 workmen of the 'B' Mills weaving unit, who refused to avail of the alternative employment in 'A' Mills and were represented by the appellant-writ petitioner-Union.
3. Before the Tribunal, the Management filed a claim statement, contending that it was having a common balance sheet for both 'A' and 'B' Mills, showing net loss to the extent of Rs.47.12 lakhs between 1982-87, that in 'B' Mills alone, there was loss to the extent of Rs.181.56 lakhs for the period of six years, though there was a net profit of Rs.144.44 lakhs in 'A' Mills.
It was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that when a resolution was sought to be moved for dispensation of 'B' Mills and disposal of the property(ies), by virtue of an order of injunction, the same was scuttled and the financial performance made in 1988-89 and 1991-92 revealed a loss of Rs.331.51 lakhs in 'B' weaving Mills alone and the performance of 'B' Mills was dismal due to establishment of several lakhs of power-looms in the country wherein the cost of production was 50% compared to the cost of production of the composite Mills.
The other facts were also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the Company moved before the BIFR to declare the 'B' Mills as a sick industrial company and that due to non-payment of electricity charges, the power supply was disconnected since 19.7.1992. The wages for the workers for the months of May, June and July of the relevant year, could not be disbursed on the respective due dates, apart from non-remittance of statutory payments such as Provident Fund, E.S.I. contribution, etc. Even the gratuity payable to the workmen could not be settled and due to non-settlement of payment to the suppliers, the supply of cotton was stopped by the suppliers and that the liabilities of the Company--'B' Mills as on 30.6.1992 was Rs.578.70 lakhs and cumulative loss was worked out to Rs.387 lakhs and thereby, the major liabilities of 'B' Mills rose to Rs.704.64 lakhs. Those grounds were highlighted before the Tribunal in support of the inevitable situation for the closure of 'B' Mills.
4. The appellant-writ petitioner-Union opposed the above claims of the Management mainly on the ground that the intention was neither genuine nor the same was in public interest. According to the Union, 'B' Mills is not a sick industrial company as per the Auditor's Report in the balance sheet of the year 1991-92 and the Management had the advantage of deferment of payment of sales tax. The other grounds were also taken.
5. Witnesses were examined and documents were marked, before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal, by an Award dated 28.11.1994 in I.D.No.4 of 1993, answered the reference in favour of the Management permitting closure of 'B' Mills including all machineries, accessories and other installations in the weaving section in the premises of 'A' Mills at Tiruppur and the Management was directed to re-deploy in 'A' Mills, all the workers of 'B' Mills and also the workmen of preparatory section of 'A' Mills within four weeks, without prejudice to their service conditions.
7. Before the learned single Judge, the aforesaid Award dated 28.11.1994, having been unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant-writ petitioner-Union, they have preferred Writ Appeal No.1979 of 2001 against the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21568 of 1994, dated 16.4.2001.
8. The Union and its workmen challenged their non-employment in I.D.No.326 of 1999 and while it was pending, the BIFR, on the application of the Management, passed adverse orders on 25.10.2004, which is the summary of the record of the meeting held on 22.7.2004 in Case No.105 of 1993. This was challenged by the Management in W.P.No.34935 of 2004 with a prayer to permit the Management to make its net work positive by infusion of fresh capital and by discharge of secured liabilities on "OTS" terms and thereby, secure de-registration as a sick industrial company, with an alternative prayer that otherwise, the BIFR be directed to consider a scheme of rehabilitation on the said terms as was proposed by the Management-Company.
9. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition No.34935 of 2004 and in view of the development that had taken place, including the Award dated 28.11.1994 in I.D.No.4 of 1993, permitting closure of 'B' Mills and most of the workmen with continuity of their services under 'A' Mills, the position of the Company improved.
10(a). The BIFR, by its proceedings dated 29.8.2005, taking into consideration the subsequent events, discharged the Company from the purview of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'SICA') with immediate effect. The said proceedings dated 29.8.2005 being in favour of the Company, it was brought to the notice of this Court in W.P.No.34935 of 2004, and in view of the prayer of the Management for closure of the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 29.11.2005, closed the Writ Petition. The said order of closure of the Writ Petition, dated 29.11.2005 in W.P.No.34935 of 2004, has been challenged by the Union in Writ Appeal No.2349 of 2005.
10(b). Another Writ Petition has been filed by the Union in W.P.No.879 of 2006, wherein, prayer has been made to forbear the respondents therein, from enforcing the proceedings dated 29.8.2005 passed by the BIFR, on the ground that the BIFR has not given opportunity of hearing to the Union, before passing of such proceedings.
10(c). In the other Writ Petition in W.P.No.4106 of 2003, giving reference to the proceedings of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'the BIFR'), dated 29.10.1997 in Case No.105 of 1993 and the appeal(s) preferred by the Management along with a co-promoter, before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'the AAIFR') as also the appeal preferred by the workers' Union before the AAIFR and the order passed therein by the AAIFR, a prayer has been made in W.P.No.4106 of 2003, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the first Management forbearing them from disposing of the movable and immovable properties of 'B' and 'A' Mills of Dhanalakshmi Mills Limited, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District, in any manner.
11. It appears that the Union along with 220 workmen, filed applications u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, registered as C.P.Nos.141 to 366 of 1995, 600 to 603 of 1995 and 7 and 8 of 1996, computing the relief payable to those workmen by way of wages for the period from 1.7.1993 to 30.4.1994 and the bonus for the year 1992-93.
12. The said C.Ps. were opposed by the Management as not maintainable, in view of closure of 'B' Mills and preparatory section of 'A' Mills, which was inevitable. It was also brought to the notice of the Labour Court, Coimbatore that an Award was passed in I.D.No.4 of 1993 on 28.11.1994 granting permission to close down 'B' Mills weaving unit and the preparatory section in 'A' Mills, while directing the Management to provide alternative employment to all 'B' Mills employees, in 'A' Mills. The Management also brought to the notice of the Labour Court that when the alternative employment was offered even earlier, 220 workmen refused the said offer, though about 139 workmen and the staff of 'B' Mills agreed to get re-deployment in 'A' Mills by accepting the MoU, dated 9.12.1992 and therefore, according to the Management, the said 220 workmen who are respondents 2 to 221 in W.P.No.5712 of 1996, were not entitled for the amounts claimed in the application preferred u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act.
13. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, by order dated 18.3.1996 in the abovesaid C.Ps., rejected the claim of the workmen (respondents 2 to 221 in W.P.No.5712 of 1996) in regard to the claim for bonus for the year 1992-93 as well as the interim relief. However, the Labour Court computed the first relief payable by way of wages for the period 1.7.1993 to 30.4.1994 in favour of those 220 workmen, as claimed by them. The Labour Court held that the closure of 'B' Mills and preparatory section of 'A' Mills in the Award, dated 28.11.1994 in I.D.No.4 of 1993, would not be taken to mean that such permission for closure was to take effect from the actual date of closure, namely 20.7.1992.
14. The aforesaid order of the Labour Court, dated 18.3.1996 in regard to the wages for the period 1.7.1993 to 30.4.1994 in favour of 220 workmen, was challenged by the Management in W.P.No.5712 of 1996.
The learned single Judge, by order dated 16.4.2003 in W.P.No.5712 of 1996, having noticed the relevant facts and evidence and permission granted by Special Industrial Tribunal on 28.11.1994 in I.D.No.4 of 1993 and that the alternative employment was actually made at the instance of the Management and that such offer of alternative employment was declined by 220 workmen (respondents 2 to 221 in the said W.P), in the absence of any other acceptable material evidence, it was held by the learned single Judge that the dis-inclination of the workmen to accept the offer of alternative employment, can only be construed as deliberate one made at the instance of those 220 workmen (respondents 2 to 221 in W.P), which only deprived them from claiming any relief for the period subsequent to such offer made on 15.12.1992. The order dated 18.3.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, having been held to be an excess of jurisdiction and having been set aside by the order dated 16.4.2001 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5712 of 1996, the Union preferred Writ Appeal No.2096 of 2001.
15. We have noticed that the Management made a settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act on 9.12.1992 with all the major Unions, except the appellant/writ petitioner-Union, whereby it was agreed for re-deployment of 'B' Mills weaving workers, in 'A' Mills, consequent upon which, about 139 workmen got re-deployment in 'A' Mills spinning unit, without any loss of wages or break in service. About 31 workers and staff of 'B' Mills left the services by way of retirement, resignation etc., leaving a balance 263 workmen of the 'B' Mills weaving unit, who refused to avail of the alternative employment in 'A' Mills and were represented by the appellant-writ petitioner-Union.
16. It appears that the problem also cropped up in 'A' Mills, which was in operation, whereinafter, lay-off imposed by the Management on 4.3.1998 and finally a notice dated 7.3.1999, was issued by the Management, declaring the suspension of operation of 'A' Mills. The Government of Tamil Nadu referred the dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal, which reads as follows:
VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED English Translation (By Court):
"As to what relief the affected workmen are entitled to, due to non-functioning of Dhanalakshmi Mills by its Management, from 4.3.1998 and due to non-entrusting of work by the Mills?"
17. The aforesaid reference by the Government of Tamil Nadu, had been registered as an "Industrial Dispute" in I.D.No.326 of 1999 and the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-104, by Award dated 17.8.2004, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the statement of witness(es), submissions made by the parties and the settlement u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act, entered into between the Management and five recognised Unions, held the settlement arrived at u/s.18(1) of the I.D. Act, is also binding upon the contesting minority Union. The terms of reference being limited, as to what relief the workman affected by lay-off imposed by the Mills/Management, being covered by the settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act, the Tribunal further held that the settlement covers the reference/question raised and being binding upon the parties, nothing survives in the matter. The said Award dated 17.8.2004 in I.D.No.326 of 1999 is challenged by the Union in W.P.No.39506 of 2004. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen made the following submissions in support of his claims:
(a) The settlement reached by the Management with the other Unit(s) u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act, is not binding on a third party-Union or its members.
(b) The closure of 'B' Mills weaving unit on 27.7.1992 was in violation of Section 25-O of the I.D. Act and therefore, the settlement reached on 19.2.1993 is bad.
(c) The closure of 'A' Mills in 1998 was in violation of Section 25-O(6) of the I.D. Act, as before such closure, no permission was obtained from the competent authority and therefore, the workmen were not entitled for wages for the period during which they were forced not to work in view of such illegal closure.
(d) So far as the order passed by the BIFR is concerned, the ground given to reject the objection raised by the Union on behalf of the workmen, is bad.
Reliance was placed on the different decisions of High Court(s) and the Supreme Court, but in view of the development and the nature of the cases, we will be citing only the judgment(s) which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these cases.
19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management highlighted the fact relating to sickness of 'B' Mills weaving unit; the steps taken by the Management for re-deployment of 'B' Mills weaving workers in 'A' Mills; the settlement reached u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act with major Union(s) and the order passed by the BIFR and the Award passed by the Labour Court in an application in I.D.No.4 of 1993, u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, as noticed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment.
20. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Management, the settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act, is also binding upon the contesting minority Union, as held by the Industrial Tribunal by its Award dated 17.8.2004 in I.D.No.326 of 1999. Learned counsel appearing for the Management placed reliance upon certain decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court.
21. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions.
22. It is not in dispute that 'B' Mills weaving unit became sick due to continuous loss from 1981-82 onwards. The Management had to move before the BIFR to declare the 'B' Mills as a sick industrial company for its rehabilitation. The power supply of 'B' Mills weaving unit was disconnected from 19.7.1992. The BIFR registered a case and took steps under the provisions of the SICA for its rehabilitation. Though the Commissioner of Labour, originally rejected the application of the Management for permission to close down the 'B' Mills, but on a Review Application, the State of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O(D).No.250, dated 6.4.1993 issued from Labour and Employment Department, came to a definite conclusion that the claims of the Management required further consideration and therefore, referred the 'dispute' for adjudication whether the demand of the Management to close down their 'B' Mills, including all machineries, accessories and other installations in the weaving preparatory section in the premises of the 'A' Mills at Tiruppur, was justified.
23. The other admitted fact is that the Special Industrial Tribunal, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects/facts, answered the 'reference' in favour of the Management and thus, permitted for closure of the 'B' Mills.
24. The major Union(s) arrived at a settlement u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act with the Management on 9.12.1992 for re-deployment of 'B' Mills weaving workers in 'A' Mills, consequent upon which, about 139 workmen got re-deployment without any loss of wages or break-in-service; 31 workmen of 'B' Mills left the services and the balance 263 workmen of 'B' Mills weaving unit refused to avail of the alternative employment and subsequently, some of them have also accepted to join 'A' Mills.
25. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 18 of the I.D. Act shows that, where a settlement has been arrived at by agreement between the employer and the workmen, otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings, it shall be binding on the parties to the agreement/settlement, in view of the clear language used in sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the I.D. Act. Section 18(3) of the I.D. Act contemplates different situation wherein a settlement has been arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings, and it shall not only be binding upon the parties to the industrial dispute, but also on the other persons specified in Section 18(3)(b),(c) and d) of the I.D. Act.
In this connection, one may refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in:
(a) AIR 1978 SC 828 (M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. The Workmen employed under M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd.) and
(b) 2005 (7) Supreme 678 (ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India and others).
26. In the present cases, as the settlement between the Management and the other Union(s), u/s 18 of the I.D. Act on 9.12.1992, is not on record, it is not clear as to whether the said settlement has been arrived at u/s 18(1) or u/s 18(3) of the I.D. Act. The fact is that the Management sought for closure of 'B' Mills weaving unit u/s 25-O of the I.D. Act, which was initially rejected by the Commissioner of Labour on 16.9.1992, but in view of the State Government's G.O.(D).No.250, dated 6.4.1993, issued from Labour and Employment Department pursuant to a Review Application and the Award passed by the Special Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.4 of 1993, dated 28.11.1994 permitting closure of the 'B' Mills, the earlier order of the Commissioner of Labour, dated 16.9.1992 stood superseded and therefore, it cannot be alleged that the closure was made in violation of Section 25-O of the I.D. Act.
27. Even if it is presumed that the settlement arrived at between the parties, u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act, is not binding on the workmen of the other Unit (i.e. 'A' Unit), there being closure of 'B' Mills weaving unit and in view of the Award passed by the Special Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.4 of 1993, dated 28.11.1994 permitting closure of 'B' Mills, the Union (viz., employees) cannot take any advantage of the settlement.
28. So far as the proceedings of the BIFR, dated 29.8.2005 discharging the Company from the purview of the provisions of SICA, is concerned, the question of declaring the 'B' Mills as a sick industrial company and the scheme for its rehabilitation, is between the Management and the BIFR. In the initial stage, the workmen or its Union, has no say in the matter. It is only when the sick industrial company is wound up, the claim of the workmen is considered at appropriate stage. Otherwise, the BIFR is supposed to look into the liability of the Company, including the wages payable to the employees, if it takes steps for preparing a scheme for rehabilitation.
29. The BIFR, by its proceedings dated 29.8.2005, taking into consideration the subsequent events, discharged the Company from the purview of the provisions of SICA, such proceedings being in favour of the Management, if it sought for withdrawal/closure of the Writ Petition No.34935 of 2004 filed by it, the Union cannot object for withdrawal/closure of the said Writ Petition filed by the Management.
30. So far as closure of 'A' Mills spinning Unit in 1998 is concerned, admittedly, the Union/its workmen of 'B' Mills, having not joined the 'A' Mills, none of its member became the employee of the 'A' Mills spinning Unit and hence, the Union in question, cannot raise any grievance in regard to closure of 'A' Mills.
31. It is not in dispute that the Special Industrial Tribunal, on 28.11.1994 in I.D.No.4 of 1993, allowed the Management to give alternative employment. Even if it is presumed that the settlement arrived at u/s 18(1) of the I.D. Act is not binding on the parties, in view of the permission granted by the Special Industrial Tribunal on 28.11.1994 in I.D.No.4 of 1993, the workmen of the appellant/writ petitioner-Union having declined to accept the offer of alternative employment, they cannot make any grievance with regard to closure of 'A' Mills spinning Unit in 1998.
32. The Writ Appeals/Writ Petitions were heard in detail on the merits of the claims of the parties. This Court, having found the grounds taken by the appellant/writ petitioner-Union almost in all the cases, prima-facie being weak, with a view to find out as to whether the Management is inclined to give certain benefits to the rest of its workmen, who are the members of the Union, this Court directed the Management to make some proposal for settlement, pursuant to which, the Management filed proposal for settlement (unsigned), dated 19.9.2007 (produced before the Court on 26.9.2007) (in Writ Appeal No.1979 of 2001), for perusal of the Court, which reads as under:
"1. Such of those employees of 'B' Mill weaving who have retired after the date of application for closure and before 20.03.1998 will be paid gratuity and closure compensation till the date of closure 20.07.1992 based on the last drawn wages at the time of closure.
2. Employees of 'B' Mill weaving who did not report for duty after the Award of the Special Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.4 of 1993 and who retired after 20.03.1998 but prior to 28.06.2005 will be paid gratuity and closure compensation till the date of closure of 'B' Mill weaving based on the wages last drawn in 20.07.1992. These employees will not be entitled to any wages for the period 20.07.1992 upto their date of retirement. However they will be paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.1000/- for every 12 months of service or part thereof in excess of 6 months for the period from 20.03.98 till the date of retirement.
3. Employees of 'B' Mill weaving numbering 114 who had taken employment on 28.06.2005 and who are in employment till date will be paid gratuity and closure compensation till 20.07.1992 based on their last drawn wages on 20.07.1992. They will also be paid gratuity and closure compensation for the period 28.06.2005 till date based on their current wages. The period from 20.07.1992 till 28.06.2005 will be treated as break in service. However, they will be paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.1000/- for every 12 months of service or part thereof in excess of 6 months for the period from 20.03.98 till the date of retirement.
4.(i) The employees who were on the roles of the 'A' Mill spinning on 20.03.1998 numbering 51 and who did not accept the Award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.326 of 1999 will be paid gratuity and closure compensation till 20.03.1998 based on the wages drawn by them in March 1998. Thereafter for the period from 28.06.2005 till date they will be paid gratuity and closure compensation at the current level of wages.
(ii) Such of those employees who retired after reporting for duty after 28.06.2005 will be paid gratuity and closure compensation till 20.03.1998 on the above basis and thereafter from 28.06.2005 till date of their retirement at their current level of wages.
(iii) The period from 20.03.1998 to 28.06.2005 for this category will be treated as break in service.
(iv) However they will be paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.1500/- for every 12 months of service or part thereof in excess of 6 months for the period from 20.03.98 till 28.6.05.
5. For the period from 26.2.2007 till date eligible employees will be paid Lay-off wages."
33. However, the Union having not accepted the aforesaid proposal for settlement (unsigned) in totality and as it wanted more variations in certain terms and conditions, the settlement could not be arrived at between the parties before this Court.
34. In all the Writ Appeals, as we find no valid ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the learned single Judge as challenged in the respective Writ Appeals in question, and no relief can be granted as sought for in all the connected Writ Petitions, we reject the prayers.
35. However, this judgment shall not stand in the way of the Union in question, to approach the Management of Dhanalakshmi Mills, for "settlement" in terms of the above quoted "proposal for settlement" (unsigned) produced by the Management. In such case, the Management may reach such settlement in view of its stand taken before this Court.
36. All the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions being devoid of merits, are dismissed.
37. In view of the foregoing discussion and decision rendered in the above Writ Appeals/Writ Petitions, no orders are necessary in the miscellaneous petitions/impleading petition(s), etc., which are accordingly closed.
38. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.
cs