Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Heard.

2.The Petitioner, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, is the apex body representing all district-level Milk Producers Unions and markets its dairy products under the trademark “Aavin” (hereinafter referred to as “Aavin”). Aavin has filed the present batch of five writ petitions challenging two common orders passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, dated 06.02.2020. The first two writ petitions arise out of orders passed in C.P. Nos. 71 of 2017 and 30 of 2018, which were decided in favour of the contesting respondents (workmen). The remaining three writ petitions are directed against a common order passed in C.P. Nos. 72 of 2017, 31 of 2018, and 32 of 2018, whereby the Labour Court computed monetary benefits in favour of the respective workmen.

18.Although the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 976 of 1998 and 13410 of 1998 is dated 16.04.2015,Aavin has, in its affidavit, claimed to have filed a writ appeal only in October 2020, which remains unnumbered and is pending as W.A. SR No. 94070 of 2018. Owing to the delay—stated to be approximately three years—Aavin has also filed C.M.P. No. 11761 of 2018 seeking condonation. However, upon verification, the Registry has confirmed that even notices in the CMP have not yet been issued. If Aavin has shown no active interest in pursuing the matter for nearly a decade, it is inconceivable for anyone that the matter can be brought up by way of a writ appeal. It must, therefore, be reasonably concluded that the order of the learned Single Judge affirming the common Award has attained finality.

20.In the second writ petition, W.P. No. 18079 of 2020, arising out of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )  W.P.No.3108 of 2021 & batch C.P. No. 30 of 2018 filed by N. Krishnamurthy, Aavin raised contentions in the counter statement identical to those already extracted above. Consequently, the Labour Court consolidated both claim petitions and conducted a joint trial. Oral evidence was adduced by G. Ulagaraj, who was examined as PW1, and his testimony was adopted as evidence in support of the second claim petition filed by Krishnamurthy as well. On behalf of the respondents (workmen), 15 documents were produced and marked as Exhibits P1 to P15. On the side of Aavin, G. Sethuraman, Manager – Administration, Ambattur Dairy, was examined as MW1. Aavin filed five documents, which were marked as Exhibits R1 to R5. However, during cross-examination, the said witness professed ignorance regarding all material facts of the case.

32.Aavin cannot proceed on the assumption that it is bound to act solely at the behest of the Government in matters governed by industrial law. Once the Industrial Tribunal had rendered its Award, it was not open to Aavin to unilaterally enter into individual settlements with the workmen that compromised or diluted the terms of the Award, especially without obtaining the sanction or approval of the Tribunal or the Court. Notably, in its counter statement filed before the Labour Court, Aavin itself had contended that the two respondents had failed to report for duty pursuant to the offer extended under Government directions, and were therefore not entitled to any monetary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/05/2025 03:59:40 pm )  W.P.No.3108 of 2021 & batch relief under the Award.