Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Srinivasan J.

1. The facts which are not in dispute can be briefly stated as follows :

The Buckingham and Carnatic Mills is more than a century old and it has been working at Perambur in the city of Madras for the last 119 years. Till recently, it has been one of the biggest textiles mills in the whole of Asia, having an installed spindleage capacity of 88,208 spindles, of which 79,072 were utilised. It had an installed loom capacity of 2,074 looms out of which 1,816 looms were utilised. It has a "dye house" or "processing house" and a central power station. It forms part of a company by name Binny Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act in 1969 by amalgamation of the Binny group of companies comprising Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company (BWM), Binny and Co. Ltd. and Binny Engineering Works Limited together with two associate companies, viz., Madura Co. P. Ltd. and the Ganges Transport and Trading Co. Ltd. Their activities are broadly organised under four divisions, viz., the textile division comprising B and C Mills at Madras and BW Mills (BWM) at Bangalore and a silk mill at Bangalore, the engineering division at Madras mainly engaged in manufacture of sugar mill and rice mill machinery and heavy structures, the service division which is an amalgam of the erstwhile Madura Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Binny and Co. Ltd. dealing with procurement and marketing of engineering and textile products, shipping clearing/forwarding agents and the real estate division at Madras engaged in development of real estate properties owned by the company. The management filed in December, 1990, an application under section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act". seeking permission of the competent authority to close down the mills. The reasons stated by the management were low productivity, excessive work force and non-co-operation of the workers. A reference was also made to a scheme furnished by the Industrial Development Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as "the IDBI", for rehabilitation which suggested shifting of the process house to Bhuvanagiri in South Arcot district. The application was opposed by the Madras Labour Union, the petitioner herein. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner of Labour, who was the authority under section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, passed an order on February 8, 1991, finding that the reasons adduced by the management were genuine and adequate, but holding that there was no justification for imminent closure. The Labour Commissioner observed that it was not beyond the control of the management to convince workers and enter into an amicable settlement for shifting of the process house to Bhuvanagiri, within a reasonable time frame and with the whole hearted support of the workers the process could be carried out.

36. In Workmen of Buckingham and Carnatic Mills v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] II LLJ 90, a Division Bench of this court held that the implementation of a settlement entered into by the management with its workmen under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be called a duty, which is in the nature of a public duty and that the obligation under the settlement is purely contractual and a writ of mandamus cannot issue for the enforcement of a contractual right. The Division Bench referred to the earlier rulings including that of Praga Tools Corporation's case , and said :

37. In Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Employees' Union v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour [1983] 1 LLJ 181, it is held that if the court can come to the conclusion on the basis of the materials available that a settlement was arrived at without the assistance and concurrence of the conciliation proceedings, there should be no difficulty in the court granting a declaration that the settlement is not one within the meaning of section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and it does not have the effect contemplated under section 18(3) of the said Act. The court held that a writ petition praying for such a declaration is maintainable. It is to be noticed that the learned judge who decided that case was a member of the Division Bench which decided Workmen of Buckingham and Carnatic Mills' case [1982] II LLJ 90, and delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench. On the merits, the learned judge held that the settlement was fair and reasonable and accepted by the majority of workers and dismissed the writ petition. That judgment was affirmed by a Division Bench of this court. Vide Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. Employees' Union v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour [1984] I LLJ 349.