AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice D. Hariparanthaman
The petitioner in all these writ petitions is a Trade Union, namely, United Labour Federation, registered under the Trade Unions Act. Majority of workmen of the respondent Textile Mills, namely, Munipachaiappa Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., are the members of the petitioner Union. The workmen employed in various industries are also members of the petitioner Union.
According to the petitioner, when majority of the workmen of the Munipachaiappa Textile Mills, joined petitioner Union, the management took coercive steps against those workmen to curb the trade union activities of the petitioner Union. Pursuant to the same, 63 activists of the petitioner Union were denied employment from 24.08.2004 by way of lock out.
According to the petitioner Union, these 63 workmen alone were locked out without any written ordeRs. The petitioner Union made several demands and conducted agitations to lift the lock out of those 63 workmen. When the management, failed to lift the lock out, the petitioner Union resorted to strike from 2.1.05 demanding the lifting of lock out in respect of 63 workmen.
According to the petitioner Union, the strike was called off on 24.10.2005. Even after the calling off the strike by the petitioner Union, the workmen were not allowed to work.
It is their case that apart from 63 workmen, who were already on lock out, other workmen were also not given work from 24.10.2005 when the workmen called off the strike. However, it is admitted by both the sides, after some time, workmen were taken in a phased manner, barring those 63 workmen. Some of the workmen were dismissed from service after holding enquiries and those workmen raised Industrial Dispute individually and those cases could be pursued by the individual workman concerned. Both side agreed that the dispute relating to denial of work to 129 workmen for a certain period after 24.10.2005 till they were provided employment in a phased manner has to be resolved. The industrial dispute relating to those 129 workmen was not referred for adjudication by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 443, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.07.2009 and the same is questioned in W.P.No. 21763 of 2009.
That apart, according to the management, among 63 workmen, they issued notices to 16 workmen and they were given charge memos individually alleging that they were un authorisedly absent and that they did not report for duty.
The petitioner Union filed W.P.No. 3412 of 2005 and W.P.No. 16241 of 2007 seeking for a direction not to proceed with the enquiry in respect of those 16 workmen without payment of subsistence allowance.
It is the case of the petitioner Union that those 16 workmen were denied employment but they were willing to report for duty and only the management denied work to them.
The issue relating to the lock out of 63 workmen were not referred to by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 445, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.7.2009 for adjudication by Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the date from which these workmen were locked out, was not stated clearly. The said G.O.Ms.No. 445 is put to challenge in W.P.No. 21764 of 2009.
Though there are several disputes to be resolved between the petitioner Union and the management, with a view to put an end to the strained relationship between the petitioner Union and the management, on consent, the main disputes have been short listed by this Court, namely,
(i) The issue relating to the alleged lock out of 63 workmen from 24.8.2004.
(ii)The issue relating to denial of work to 129 workmen for a certain period.
The petitioner Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer in their letter, dated 17.05.2005 relating to the lock out imposed on the 63 workmen. It is categorically stated that these 63 workmen were under illegal lock out from August 2004. Since it is stated that these workmen were illegally locked out from August 2004, the first respondent is not correct in declining to refer the dispute on the ground that the date of lock out has not been stated clearly.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Management has also fairly submitted that the issue relating to the alleged lock out of 63 workmen from August 2004 could be referred for adjudication by a competent Industrial Tribunal.
The learned Senior Counsel for the Management has also submitted that as to whether some of the workmen were employed or not could also be gone into in the Industrial Dispute relating to the lock out of 63 workmen, as the very employment of some of them are disputed.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Union has submitted that all the 63 workmen including 16 workmen against whom charge memos given were not permitted to join duty and they are in fact on lock out.
The learned Senior Counsel for the management submitted that the management could not proceed with the disciplinary action against those 16 persons, since no disciplinary action has taken place pursuant to the interim order of this Court.
The learned Senior Counsel for the management submitted that the industrial dispute relating to lock out of 63 workmen including 16 workmen could be referred for adjudication, without prejudice to their right to raise all issues including the very employment of some of them.
In these circumstances, the G.O.No. 445, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.07.2009 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The respondent Government is directed to refer the industrial dispute relating to the lock out of 63 workmen from August 2004 by the respondent Management for adjudication by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal at Chennai. Parties are at liberty to raise all issues before the Industrial Tribunal, on reference.
Since the dispute relating to the lock out of 63 workmen is now referred for adjudication, it is agreed by both side that there is no need for any further adjudication in W.P.Nos. 3412 of 2005, 16241 of 2007 and 21764 of 2009.
Now the only remaining issue is relating to the non employment of 129 workmen for a certain period after 24.10.2005 until they were given employment in a phased manner.
The learned Senior Counsel for the Management has fairly submitted that the issue relating to the alleged non employment of 129 workmen from 24.10.2005 until those workmen were given work could also be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Union submits that in the impugned G.O.No. 443, dated 29.7.2009, the first issue therein no longer survives. As far as the second issue, which relates to 155 workmen, is concerned, among 155 workmen, the Industrial Dispute now survives only in respect of 129 workmen relating to the alleged non employment for a period from 24.10.2005 until they were provided employment in a phased manner and therefore, the matter may be referred for adjudication in respect of 129 workmen, whose list is enclosed along with this order.
Accordingly, the impugned order in G.O.No. 443, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.07.2009 is also set aside as far as the second issue is concerned.
In the result, the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Tamil Nadu is hereby directed to refer the industrial dispute relating to lock out of 63 workmen from 24.08.2004 and also the industrial dispute relating to non-employment of 129 workmen from 24.10.2005 until they were provided employment in a phased manner, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.