Art Industrial School vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

The petitioner is the management of one Art Industrial School having their office at Nazareth, Tuticorin District. In this Writ petition they have come forward to challenge an endorsement made by the 1st respondent / Labour Court, Tirunelveli on 17.09.2009 in C.P. No. 30 of 2007. The endorsement reads as follows:

In view of the memo filed by the respondent, respondent is directed to permit the petitioners to report for duty on 01.10.2009 in the same trades. Compliance by respondent by 05.10.2009.

It is seen from the records that earlier a dispute was raised by the Industrial Estate Works Union, Tirunelveli in I.D.No.252 of 1981.The said dispute, which was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Madurai. The workmen''s non employment was held to be invalid and they were directed to reinstated with backwages. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner / Management filed a Writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos. 2719 of 1993 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 06.06.2002 by confirming the award. Thereafter, the management filed a Writ appeal in W.A.No.2435 of 2002. The Writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 06.09.2007.

Though the management claims that subsequent to the orders, they requested the workmen to come for work. The workmen in stead of reporting in work have filed a claim statement before the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

It is also stated that as against the order of the Division Bench, the petitioner / Management had preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court, which is pending. Before the Labour Court, the workmen claimed the benefit of the award in respect of 22 workers, which included arrears of salary, bonus and other attendant benefits. In that claim petition, notice was ordered to the petitioner/ Management. On notice from the Labour Court, they filed a counter statement on 02.11.2008.

In the mean while, there were peace committee meeting held by the Revenue Authorities between the contesting parties. But, in C.P.No.30 of 2007 the management filed a memo stating that on humanitarian consideration and on the basis of peace committee meeting, it permitted them to report for duty both individually and through the union. They had also stated that workmen did not accept the offer made by the management. It presumed that they wantonly ignored their chances. However, in stead of proceeding with the claim petition, where the management made a curious endorsement stating that the workmen will be permitted to report for duty on 01.10.2009. In the same page it was recorded that the compliance must be reported to the Court on 05.10.2009. Reliance was placed upon the memo filed by the management. A reading of the memo does not say that the management had offered to take them back at all times. It is only the offer made to join on or before on the particular date.

In any event, the subsequent controversies have no relevance in deciding the monetary benefit made by the workmen in a C.P. The endorsement made in the Court bundle, which is extracted above, does not give any cause of action by the management to rush to this Court. No right of the management is affected. It may be that the Labour Court must have been forced to make such an endorsement due to the statements made by both sides before the Labour Court offer noting that the workmen wanting to work or the management preventing them to work. In any event, such an issue did not arise out of the claim petition filed by the workman and it is for the Labour Court to proceed to decide the computation petition one way or other and not take note of the subsequent proceedings.

Though the Labour Court has empowered to advise parties to compromise on the main matter, but, such a plea cannot be found reflected in a judicial proceedings as such pleadings held will have no relevance directly to the wages claimed by the workmen. Even otherwise the management need not have rushed to this Court challenging the said endorsement. In this process more than two years have lapsed. Both sides are unable to state the present status of C.P. No. 30 of 2007.

Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable and also a direction is issued to the Labour Court to decide the C.P.No.30 of 2007 one way or other on the merits of the case, after giving notice to the parties. If the Labour Court has already disposed of the said matter this direction need not be taken note of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.