AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is the management of Srihari Mills Private Limited at Ondipudur in Coimbatore District. Inall these Writ Petitions, the challenge is made to theorder passed by the 1st Respondent Labour Court, Coimbatorein various Interlocutory Applications. The interlocutoryapplications were dismissed by the Labour Court by separateorders dated 29.12.2009. Aggrieved by the interim orderspassed by the Labour Court, the Petitioners have moved thisCourt.
When the Writ Petitions came up for admission on28.6.2010, this Court directed Notice to be served on thelearned Counsel who appeared for the workman and grantedinterim stay for a limited period. Subsequently, on13.7.2010, the interim stay was directed to continuewithout specifying any particular time limit.
On notice from this Court, Mr. G.B.Saravanabhavanappears for the contesting 2nd Respondent workmen in allthe Writ Petitions.
It is seen from the records that the contestingRespondents workmen filed Claim Petitions u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 1st
Respondent Labour Court. The claim made by them was forunpaid wages for the period from 1.7.1995 to 31.7.1995 atthe rate of Rs. 125/-per day and also the salary due interms of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Actstarting from 1.10.1995 to 31.7.2006. The claim for eachworkman varies depending upon the rate of wages for theperiod for which the claim has been made. The Labour Courttook up those applications on file and assigned variousClaim Petition Numbers and ordered Notice to the Petitionermanagement.
The Petitioner management on receipt of the noticefiled a counter statement in each of the Claim Petitionsdated 20.2.2008. The stand of the Petitioner managementwas that a settlement u/s 18(1) of the IndustrialDisputes Act on 24.10.2002 was signed between the partiesand under Clause 18, the workmen have agreed that they willnot claim any lay off compensation in view of the severeeconomic crisis faced by the Petitioner management and itwill be treated as ''no work No. pay''.
Before the Labour Court could take up the issues ina trial, curiously the Petitioner management filed interlocutory applications asking the Labour Court todecide the preliminary issue relating to themaintainability of the claim petitions, in view of thesettlement signed u/s 18(1) of the IndustrialDisputes Act between the parties. It was stated that 476out of 490 workers have received the benefit in terms ofthe settlement dated 24.10.2002 and contrary to the orderpassed by this Court in a Writ Petition, the claimpetitions were filed.
The Interlocutory applications were assignedvarious numbers by the Labour Court and the contestingRespondents workmen filed a counter statement stating thatthe claim made in the claim petitions and the issuespending before this Court are different matters. Theworkers are only claiming minimum wages and bonus duringthe period of illegal closure of the mill. It is alsostated that at every stage of the proceedings, themanagement is adopting dilatory tactics. Some of the co�workers were also threatened with police and goondas andforcibly signatures were sought to be obtained.
The Labour Court in a petition u/s 33-C(2) can comprehensively decide all matters and there is nonecessity to decide any particular issue as a preliminaryissue. The Labour Court on the basis of pleadings betweenthe parties and after hearing both parties by order dated29.12.2009 dismissed the interlocutory applications andposted the main claim petitions and it also stated that theissue will be tried along with other issues and it isunnecessary to decide the issue raised by the managementin the interlocutory applications as separate issues.However, the contention of the management was that underRule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958,the Labour Court are empowered to decide a preliminaryissue and therefore there is No. impediment for the LabourCourt to try this as preliminary issue.
Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 reads as follows:
Preliminary enquiry - A Labour Court or Tribunal,while investigating any industrial dispute, may inits discretion, settle the issues in the light ofa preliminary enquiry, which it may hold for thepurpose, and thereafter adjudicate the said dispute.
A perusal of the Rule clearly shows that it refersto investigation of industrial dispute by Labour Court or Tribunal and even in such cases, the Court only by itsdiscretion can settle the issue in the light of thepreliminary enquiry which it may hold and thereafteradjudicate the dispute. It is not clear as to how the saidRule is applicable to the proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The proceedings underSection 33-C(2) is in the nature of execution proceedingsand summary in nature and it is for the Labour Court todecide whether the issue is a preliminary issue or itshould try with other issues in a comprehensive manner.
The Labour Court correctly referred to thejudgment of the Supreme Court in D.P.Maheswari v. Delhiadministration reported in 1983 (2) LLJ 425. It alsohighlighted the apprehension raised by the Supreme Courtthat at every time, the employers are baulking at theproceedings and times have gone when matters were decidedleisurely as a preliminary issue and thereafter decide onthe merits of the case. Though the said judgment relatedto a Public Sector Corporation, the apprehension raised bythe Supreme Court applies to all types of litigationsbefore the Labour Court. In fact in that case, the SupremeCourt had warned the employers that they should not attempt to avoid adjudication on merits by raising preliminary issues.
In this context, the Labour Court also referred tothe decision rendered by this Court in Neslin Joseph Prinvs. Presiding Officer, Central Government IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai reported in 2003 (1) LLN 366, wherein this Court had held that the Labour Court isunder obligation to decide all issues as early as possiblekeeping in mind the entire scheme of the Act.
In the common counter affidavit filed by thecontesting Respondents, they have also raised the issuethat in respect of the claim made under Chapter V-B, thequestion of any settlement defeating the rights of theworkmen will not arise. Even in the said settlementreferred to by the management, there was provision toconvert that bilateral settlement into one of tripartitesettlement u/s 12(1) of the Industrial DisputesAct and that has not been done by the management.
Mr. G.B.Saravanabhavan, learned Counsel for thecontesting Respondents also referred to the judgment of this Court in Sri Arunachaleswarar Mills represented by itsPartner S.Natarajamoorthy, Krishnapuram, Udumalaipettai v. The Joint Secretary, Department of Industries and Labour Secretariat, Chennai and Ors. in W.P. No. 24564 of 2009dated 18.1.2010 reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 1234, wherein thisCourt after referring to the non-obstante clause underSection 25-J(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act had heldthat the rights of the workman in applying from Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B cannot be compromised by any contract.
However, it is unnecessary to render any findingat this stage on the merits of the case. It is sufficethat the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court do notsuffer from any illegality or infirmity and the LabourCourt had not erred in refusing the particular issue as apreliminary issue and had assured the parties that theissues will be decided in a comprehensive manner. In thelight of the same, since the main issue is yet to bedecided by the Labour Court, this Court is refrain fromdealing with the merits of the claim made by the parties.It is suffice that the Labour Court will try all the issuesarising out of the claim made by the contesting Respondentsworkmen at the time of the trial. It is rather unfortunate that the management had stalled the summary proceedings byfiling a Writ Petition that too against preliminary orderswithout any real prejudice being caused to them. In thatprocess, one year had elapsed.
Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed witha cost of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) payable tothe learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondentworkmen. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions areclosed.
Since the Claim Petitions are of the year 2006 andmore than 5 years lapsed, the Labour Court shall givepreference for the disposal of the claim petitions and inany event shall dispose of the same after a trial, within aperiod of four months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.