Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 976
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
The Management of City Knitting Company, Padmavathipuram, Angeripalayam Road, Tiruppur
Versus
K.K. Selvaraj, & Others
Writ Appeal Nos. 2115 to 2134 of 2000
Decided on : 09-03-2010
For the Appellants :R. Gandhi Senior Counsel for R.G. Narendhiran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 - V. Ajoy Khose, R2 - A. Arumugham, Spl. Government Pleader (W)
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of workmen must be justified and in compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, and the alleged loss due to a strike is not relevant to the termination.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Termination of Workmen - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Sec. 11-A, Sec. 25-F - The court held that the termination of workmen was not justified and ordered reinstatement with back wages.
Fact of the Case:
The workmen were terminated by the Appellant Management on the grounds of illegal strike and causing loss to the company. The workmen filed Claim Petitions before the Labour Court, which dismissed the claims. The learned single Judge quashed the order of the Labour Court and directed reinstatement with back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of workmen was not justified as the alleged loss due to the strike was not relevant to the termination. The court also found that the workmen were permanent employees and were not engaged in other work as claimed by the Management. The court held that the termination was not for misconduct and did not comply with the provisions of Sec.25-F of I.D. Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination of workmen was justified and whether reinstatement with back wages was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination was not justified as it was not for misconduct and did not comply with the provisions of Sec.25-F of I.D. Act. The court also held that the alleged loss due to the strike was not relevant to the termination.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the order of the learned single Judge quashing the Award of Labour Court and directed the Appellant Management to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in full quit of their claim to each of the Respondents Workmen within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the Judgment.
R. BANUMATHI, J.
.1. These Writ Appeals arise out of the common order of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.20860, 20957 to 20962, 21036 to 21041 and 21098 to 21103 of 1993 quashing the Award of the Labour Court and ordering reinstatement of workmen with back wages. W.A.No.2115/2000 has been filed agianst the order of learned single Judge in W.P.No.13365/1992 dated 28.07.2000. Management is the Appellant in these Appeals. Since, the issue involved in these Batch of Writ Appeals are one and the same, all the Writ Appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. The case of Workmen is that they are the permanent employees of Appellant Management – City Knitting Company, Tiruppur and they are the active members of Banian and Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam affiliated to CITU. Further case of Workmen is that over the dispute of distribution of bonus, Appellant Management refused work to the Respondents Workmen with effect from 111. 1988 which resulted in raising of Industrial Dispute before the Labour Officer on 012. 1988 requesting for restoration of work. The Labour Officer advised the Appellant Management to restore the Respondents Workmen to duty. But in the mean time, on 012. 1988, the Management suspended the Respondents Workmen and issued show cause notice by levelling some charges and enquiry was fixed on 28.04.1989. According to Respondents Workmen, no enquiry was held on that date and again the date was fixed on 04.05.1989. Even on that date, no enquiry was held and it was adjourned. Case of Respondents Workmen is that there was no notice with regard to the enquiry. In the mean time, the Appellant Management sent an intimation on 110. 1989 to the Respondents Workmen that their services were terminated by discharge simpliciter, that too, with retrospective effect from 111. 1988. Thereafter, Respondents Workmen approached Conciliation Officer for mediation. Since conciliation failed, Respondents Workmen have filed Claim Petitions before the Labour Court.
3. In the Labour Court, Appellant Management appeared and contested the claim contending that the Respondents Workmen were on strike from 111. 1988 and on 012. 1988, the workmen entered into the premises and created indiscipline disorder and notice was issued to them on 012. 1988 stating that they should not enter into the premises of Appellant company. Further case of Appellant Management is that inspite of such notice, Respondents Workmen stayed inside the premises of the factory without doing any work and it is only after the intervention of the Police, Respondents Workmen left the premises of the factory. Further case of Management is that after issuing show cause notice, enquiry was initiated, but the enquiry could not be completed because of the lack of co-operation by the striking workers. According to the Appellant Management, because of the strike considerable loss has been caused to the Appellant company and they lost valuable Export orders. Case of Management is that taking all these factors into consideration, it was decided to terminate the services of the Respondents Workmen by order dated 110. 1989 and the Respondents Workmen were paid a months wages in lieu of notice and also compensation in accordance with law and therefore the discharge simpliciter is justified.
.4. In the Labour Court, onbehalf of Respondents Workmen one Rangasamy was examined as WW1 and Exs.W1 to W13 were marked. Onbehalf of the Management one of the partner by name Balasubramaniam was examined as MW1 and Exs.M1 to M21 were marked as Management documents. Upon consideration of evidence, Labour Court dismissed the Claim Petitions holding that the orders of discharge simpliciter were justified on the ground that due to their illegal strike, the Appellant Management has lost about Rs.45,00,000/-. Labour Court further directed the Appellant Management to make payment of their due entitlement in lieu of termination and also directed the Management to make p
