Specific plea of laches raised by employer.

Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.-

This is an appeal instituted by the Management of United Bleachers (Private), Limited, Mettupalayam, from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in W.P. No. 129 of 1962, which itself was a proceeding for the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the award in Industrial Dispute No.41 of 1961 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The facts have to be set forth first, with some precision and care, for a proper appreciation of the true scope of the controversy before us. For the purpose of the disposal of this appeal, we are segregating certain essential facts alone for notice, and disregarding others. One P. Krishnan, employed as a workman in the organisation of the appellant institution, in a particular capacity of a Supervisor of a shift, in the Stitching Department, was informed by a letter of the Management, dated 3rd October, 1957, that his post was abolished. This was in consequence of a decision by the Management to work both stitching machines during the day-shift, to abolish the night-shift. In order to lessen the hardship to the worker, he was offered an alternative job of a Helper in the same department, admittedly, a different and lower category. On 3th October, 1957, the Management terminated the services of another worker C. Krishnan, in the lower category, so as to provide P. Krishnan with the employment offered. P. Krishnan declined on 9th October, 1957, to leave his post of Supervisor in the Stitching Section, and to work as a Helper. He also declined, according to the Management, to receive a ‘show cause ‘notice for alleged misconduct. He was then dismissed from service, and a dispute was raised on this issue, which was the subject-matter of a proceeding before the Labour Court. It ended in an award dated 10th March, 1958, directing P. Krishnan to be reinstated in service.

Meanwhile, the workers comprising the Union had taken up the question of the retrenchment of C. Krishnan, in the inferior category of Helper on the ground that this was not justified. That separate industrial dispute also ended in favour of the contention of Labour, and the Labour Court gave an award to that effect, dated 15th May, 1958. According to the Management, they then found themselves in a real difficulty in implementing the two awards, because the cumulative effect of the awards was that the Management could not offer the post of the Helper to P Krishnan but had to retain or reinstate C. Krishnan, while the Management was compelled to continue P. Krishnan as a Supervisor in the Stitching Section, according to them a post which ought to be retrenched in the interests of economy. Some correspondence followed, into the details of which we need not here enter One matter stands clear, and that is that the award of the Labour Court with regard to P. Krishnan was not implemented, according to the contention of Labour (I.D. No. 1 of 1938), and that there were certain proceedings in consequence a prosecution of the Management under a relevant section of law, in the Court of the District Magistrate Coimbatore. They resulted in a conviction; but, on an appeal to the District and Sessions Judge, the Management was acquitted ; throughout, the claim of the Management was that there was no intentional failure to implement the award. On 25th September, 1958, the Management dismissed a large number of workers of the establishment for alleged participation in a strike and that gave rise to a third industrial dispute, I.D. No. 69 of 1958. That culminated in certain writ proceedings, and a pending writ appeal. According to the case of the Union, the delay in making the reference by the State Government in the present industrial dispute, was on account of these circumstances ; as we shall see later, the question of delay is one of the relevant facts in the present proceedings.

The Labour Court held, by the award which was the subject of the Writ Petition before the learned Judge (Veeraswami, J.), that the dismissal of P. Krishnan,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document