Disobedience cannot entail penal action.

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call quash the award dated 1.7.1987 made in I.D.No.1 of 1985 on the file of respondent.

2. The petitioners were all workers of the second respondent-mill which has existence since 1966. Originally, there was one trade union affiliated to the I.N.T.U.C. the year 1982 another Union came into existence which was affiliated to the C.I.T.U. petitioners 10 and 12 who belonged to the I.N.T.U.C, the rest of the petitioners belonged C.I.T.U. The question of workload and wages in the second respondent mill are covered settlements, the last of which was the one dated 7.8.1978 under Sec.12(3) of the Disputes Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) with the I.N.T.U.C. Union. The said settlement to be in force for a period of five years. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioners according to the 1978 settlement, the workload was on par with the workload obtaining most of the Textile Mills in Coimbatore, that while the settlement of the year 1978 force the second respondent/management put up a notice on 22.2.1983 demanding increase in the workload, that the C.I.T.U. wrote a letter dated 23.2 1983 management stating that they should also be heard in the discussion regarding revision workload, that without terminating the earlier settlement, the I.N.T.U.C. Union instance of the management made a demand for revision demanding wages, conciliation officer, Karaikal, fixed the conciliation proceedings relating to the dispute, 24.8.1983 which ultimately was adjourned to 5.9.1983 on the objection raised C.I.T.U. on the ground that the matter was covered by an earlier settlement of 1978, the dispute was again taken up on 1.10.1983 when the rival faction of the I.N.T.U.C. one Subramaniam and Rajagopal questioned the competency of Jawahar Batcha to continue to represent the I.N.T.U.C. and in view said dispute, the conciliation proceedings were adjourned without specifying a date, the rival factions of the I.N.T.U.C. to get the dispute among the rival groups adjudicated. It is also claimed by the petitioners that while matters stood thus, management put up a notice on 3.10.1983 stating that they had come into a settlement under Sec.18(1) of the Act relating to the revision of workload and wages with Batcha, whose position as Secretary of the I.N.T.U.C. was disputed and the workmen directed to give the new workload in terms of the settlement entered into, on 1.10.1983.

3. On coming to know of the settlement said to have been entered into on 1.10.1983, rival factions of I.N.T.U.C. and the C.I.T.U. union appear to have sent telegrams 4.10.1983 to the Labour Officer, Karaikal and the Commissioner of Labour, Pondicherry well as to the Management and the management appears to have written a letter asking Labour Officer to convert the settlement dated 1.10.1983 into a Settlement under Sec.12(3) of the Act to make it binding on all workers. It is also claimed that the Labour Officer to accede to this request and, therefore, the settlement dated 1.10.1983 continues remain as a settlement under Sec.18(1) of the Act. Despite this fact, the management appears to have threatened all workmen irrespective of the fact whether they were to Sec.18(1) settlement dated 1.10.1983 or not, to give an increased workload on disciplinary action. At that stage, it appears that the C.I.T.U. filed a writ petition before Court against the management and inspite of interim orders granted therein, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and by conducting farce of an dismissed the petitioners by an order dated 26/27.5.1984. The matter was moved before concerned authorities, which culminated in the passing of G.O.Rt.No.79, Labour, 5.2.1985, referring the dispute as to whether the dismissal of the 12 workers Soundararaja Spinning Mills, Nedungadu by the Management was justified and if not relief they are entitled to and to compute the relief in terms of money, if it can be so.

4. The first respond