AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sampath, J.—The writ petitioner is the same in all the petitions being Kalapatti Spinning Mills (Private) Ltd., Coimbatore, while the
second respondent in each of the writ petitions is different. However, the question arising for consideration in all the writ petitions being the same,
the writ petitions are disposed of by the following common order.
2, The grievance of the writ-petitioner is that the first respondent Labour Court while taking up the issue whether the question as to the
maintainability of the industrial disputes has to be taken as a preliminary issue or not has decided the main industrial disputes themselves and this is
erroneous.
3.The allegations common to the writ petitions are as under:
The writ-petilioner-company formed in 1989 purchased the land and building at Kalapatti where a textile unit was functioning in the name of Sri
Padma Textiles, which was closed sometime in 1980. After purchase the writ-petitioner installed new machines and started running the mill from
1990. The Coimbatore District Employees'' Textile National Union raised 3 dispute on behalf of the textile workers of Padma Mills against the
petitioner/management claiming employment. The petitioner/management denied any liability and pointed out that there was no relationship of
employee and workman between the petitioner and the second respondent in each of the writ petitions. There were conciliation talks culminating in
a letter of advice by Joint Commissioner of Labour on April 12, 1990. The advice to the writ-petitioner was to take the workmen of the erstwhile,
Padma Mills into its services depending upon their age, suitability, etc., and as fresh entrants. These workers were given employment as fresh
workers and without any continuity of service and this position was also clarified by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, vide his
advice dated August 13, 1991. However, this was subject to the workmen concerned reporting for duty on dates specified in stages by the
petitioner-company and the persons working in Padma Mills would not have the continuity of service or any other benefits by the petitioner-
company for the services rendered in Padma Mills except the gratuity payable to them by Padma Mills which would be protected and paid by the
petitioner company. The petitioner-company did not have the addresses of the erstwhile workers of Padma Mills, therefore, it exhibited notices in
the mills'' premises and requested the concerned persons as shown in the annexure to the advice of the Joint Commissioner of Labour to report to
the mill on any of the three days, i.e., April 27, 1990, April 28, 1990 and April 29, 1990 to register their names as a token of their willingness to
join the company and get time cards as fresh employees. Copies of notices were also sent to the authorities concerned and also to the Coimbatore
District National Textile Employees'' Union which was authorised by the second respondent in each of the writ petitions to raise dispute before the
Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, in the matter. Many workmen of erstwhile Padma Mills reported to the petitioner-company on the
dates mentioned and got fresh employment in the petitioner- company. They were given fresh dates of service and treated as juniors to the then
workmen in the petitioner-mills. However, the second respondent in each of the writ petitions did not choose to avail of the opportunity and failed
to report on the dates mentioned. The second respondent in each of the writ petitions raised industrial disputes in I.D. Nos. 425 of 1992, 426 of
1992, 151 of 1993, 152 of 1993, 153 of 1993 and 154 of 1993.
The writ-petitioner contended that the petitions u/s 2-A were not maintainable inasmuch as the second respondent in each of the writ petitions
did not report before the date fixed and failed to avail the opportunity given to him to get enrolled for employment under the management.
Thereafter the petitioner-management filed I.As. in each of the I.Ds. for deciding the maintainability of the main petitions as the preliminary issue.
This was opposed by the workmen by filing the necessary counter statements. In particular, it was contended on behalf of the workmen that the
question need not be and could not be taken as a preliminary issue in view of the Supreme Court decisions in 1983 II L.L.J. 637 and British India
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and Others, and it should be taken up only in the main petition.
The Labour Court by a common order dated April 10, 1995, held that the second respondent in each of the writ petition was a workman.
Aggrieved the various writ petitions have been filed.
Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the management, submitted that what Commissioner of Labour did was only in the nature of advice to
the management and until and unless the worker reported for duty on the date specified there did not come into existence any relationship of
employer and employee between the management and the worker concerned and when the writ-petitioner management wanted the Labour Court
to decide whether the maintainability of the I.D. could be taken up as a preliminary issue had decided that there existed the relationship of
employer-employee between the management and the worker concerned and that he had practically decided the main petition themselves.
According to the learned counsel, six persons concerned did not report for duty and the relationship of employer-employee never commenced.
Sri N. Balasubramanian, the second respondent in each of the petitions submitted that the writ-petitioner-management invited the Court to give a
finding as to the maintainability of the Industrial disputes and having invited the Labour Court, it was not open to the management to go back and
explain against the finding given by the Labour Court. The learned counsel also relied on a number of decisions in support of his contentions that
the writ petitions themselves were not maintainable against a decision on a preliminary issue and if at all the management was aggrieved it was
always open to the management to raise the question after the decision in the main petitions.
Shri Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner-management submitted that writ petitions having been taken on file and entertained, it was
not open to the second respondent in each of the writ petitions to contend that the writ petitions themselves were not maintainable. If they had been
dismissed at the threshold then the writ-petitioner might not have cause to complaint. Having entertained the writ petitions the Court had to go into
the question on the merits of the case.
Even at this stage it has to be noticed that the writ petitions were not admitted, only notices of motion were ordered and the cases have been
pending for nearly three years. Be that as it may the question is whether the petitioner- management should have a decision as regards the
maintainability of the industrial disputes at this stage of the matters.
I had occasion to consider the question in W.P. No. 14414 of 1998 and after referring to a number of authorities starting from Moheshur
Singh v. Bengal Government 1 M.I.A. 283 P.C., Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Blue Star Workers Union and Another, , The Cooper Engineering Limited
Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, Gurumurthy v. Second Additional Labour Court, Madras, and Anr. 1995 I LLJ 1022 and Shree Kumar Textiles (Private)
Ltd. v. Labour Court and Anr. I held that the High Court would not be doing the right thing to intervene at the stage of the proceedings before the
Labour Court on a finding accorded on a preliminary issue. The position is the same in the present writ petitions also. Consequently, the writ
petitions have to fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMPs. Nos. 12495, 12497,
12499, 12501, 12503 and 12505 of 1995 are closed. It is not necessary to interfere at this stage.
It is wholly unnecessary to say that it will be open to the writ-petitioner to challenge the finding on the preliminary issue in the further
proceedings against the decision in the main I.Ds. in the event of their going against the petitioner/management.