AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr. K. Chandra, J.
The petitioners in these writ petitions are workmen employed by the second respondent-Textile mill.
In these writ petitioner the petitioners have come forward to challenge, a common order passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in various claim petitions dated 20.8.2009. By the impugned order, the Labour Court dismissed the claim petitions and held that the petitioners are not entitled to have more amount than what was already paid to them in terms of voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the second respondent Mill. Challenging the said order, the above writ petitions came to be tiled.
The writ petitions were admitted on 23.4.2009. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the second respondent, M/s T.S. Gopalan appears for the second respondent.
The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitioners are as follows: The seven petitioners herein along with eight others filed claim petitions before the Labour Court u/s 33(c)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short as I.D. Act) claiming an amount of Rs. 75,000 in terms of the settlement signed u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act, dated 28.3.1955. The case of the petitioners was that though they were paid Rs. 50,000 in terms of settlement, they were not actually trainees, but they were regular workers and in spite of ''workmen'' covered by paragraph 4 of the said settlement, they should be paid in terms of paragraph 3 of the settlement. The Labour Court took up those applications filed and assigned various numbers.
On notice from the Labour Court, counter statement was filed. It was contended by the second respondent that the mill stopped the work from 15.6.1996 and after sometime, settlement was reached between the major Trade Union and the management u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act on 28.3.1998. As per the letter of settlement, in terms of paragraph 3 of the settlement, the permanent workers were allowed to go on Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they were paid the amounts stipulated therein. Paragraph 4 of the terms of settlement provided for an amount of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to each of the workman who are employed as trainees. Pursuant to the said settlement, each of the petitioners have got Rs. 50,000 on 15.5.1996. Therefore, they are not eligible for any further amount. It was also contended that the status of the workmen cannot be gone into a petition filed u/s 33(c) of the I.D. At.
Before the Labour Court, all the claim petitions were grouped together and joint trial was conducted. On behalf of the workmen, Mr. R. Udayakumar and R. Prakasam were examined as P.W. 1 and 2 respectively and on the side of the petitioner, ten documents were filed and marked as Ex. P.1 to P.10. On the side of the management, five documents wore filed and marked as Ex. R1 to R5 and one D. Purushothaman was examined as RW 1 and the Labour Court on analysis of the evidence placed before it came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not entitled to any further amount and dismissed the said petitions by a common order dated 20.8.2008. This gave rise to some of the petitioners approaching this court by way of writ petitions.
The Labour Court held that the workmen were bound by the settlement u/s 12(3) of the I.D. Act which is marked as Ex. P3 and they have not proved to the satisfaction of the Court that they are not trainees and they are regular workers. It is also found that a sum of Rs. 50,000 as offered under Ex. R. 3. The workers have received the sum without any protest and no further letters were written by them to the management. This fact was admitted by PW 1 in his cross-examination as noted by the Labour Court in paragraph 25 of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the above order showing them as trainees in the year 1985 only stipulates training for the period of 50 weeks and thereafter they should be deemed to be regular workers. Therefore, the second respondent-mill cannot deny them as the status of the regular workers. He also placed reliance on a certificate issued wherein it was intimated that they are workman in the second respondent-textile mill and therefore they are not described as trainees, but from the certificate issued shows that it was issued to enable the workmen to obtain new Ration Card and no further meaning can be taken out for the said certificate. Even though the order of appointment showns that they have to undergo training for a period of 52 weeks, in the absence of any standing orders, by which, they are deemed to be in permanent status, this court cannot presume that they are regular workers and eligible to get the amount paid to the regular workers in terms of Paragraph 3 of the said settlement. Even otherwise, as to the status of the workmen, whether they are trainees or deemed to be in permanent workers is not an issue to be disputed u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, apart from that the Labour Court has also referred to the admission made by PW1 that after receiving the amount of Rs. 50,000 there was no protest by them and yet another factor which works against the workman.
In these circumstances, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Hence, the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.