The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section 9A, and the relevance of standing orders in determining the legality of altering shift systems.

1. The petitioner is a registered trade union having its affiliation to Centre of Indian Trade Unions (for short CITU). The petitioner union has filed the present writ petition seeking to restrain the first respondent from unilaterally altering the service conditions of the workmen employed under the first respondent management to their prejudice until the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings initiated by the petitioner union on the question of alteration of shift system pending before the second respondent. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner union had also filed M.P.No.1 of 20011 seeking for an interim injunction restraining the first respondent from altering the three shift system to two shift system based on the notice, dated 1.7.2011 issued by the first respondent.

2. The first respondent is the National Textile Corporation Limited. Under the control of its Southern Regional office, there are several textile mills functioning in the Coimbatore Region. They also include Coimbatore Murugan Mills, Sri Ranga Vilas mills, Cambodia Mills, Pankaja Mills, Kaleeswara B Unit, Pioneer Mills and C.S.& W Mills. There are about 4000 employees employed in these mills. There are about 1200 casual workers. It was also stated that all these textile mills were functioning in three shift systems for over five decades. The first shift was from 7.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m., the second shift was from 03.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m. and the third shift was from 12.00 a.m. to 07.00 a.m. Since it is continuous process, all the millls worked on a 24 x 7 basis. However, for the last one year, the first respondent was resorting to lay off on the basis of want of orders. The workers were paid full wages for the lay off period. All of a sudden, they had issued a notice dated 1.7.2011 proposing to alter the three shift system into two shift system with a view to avoid the workers being laid off and also to find out full employment for all workers. Therefore, it was stated that day and night shifts alone will be operated and there will not be any second shift, i.e. from 03.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m. The workers working in three shifts will be divided into two shifts. Instead of different weekly off, all the workers will be given Sunday as weekly off. These measures are only temporary and as soon as the situation became normal, there will be review of shift working. In the same notice, it was also stated that the Electricity Board had imposed a ban on using electricity from 6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and because of that this extraordinary situation had taken place. There is also slump in the industries and that the stocks of yarns to the extent of 88.31 crores are kept in the godown without being sold. When this extraordinary situation was discussed with the recognised unions, the unions had stated that they are willing to cooperate in the manufacturing process without any lay off being given to workers.

3. Challenging the alteration of shift system, another trade union filed W.P.No.16046 of 2011 before this court, seeking for a restring on the first respondent from implementing their decision without complying with the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That writ petition was dismissed on 05.07.2011 by this court stating that if workers were aggrieved for the infraction of Section 9A, they must raise an industrial dispute before the appropriate conciliation officer.

4. But, in the case of the petitioner union, they have raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Madurai. In that dispute, it was contended by them that since alteration of shift system will attract item No.6 of Fourth Schedule read with Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and since no notice was issued, the impugned notice was invalid. Since workers are not accepting the alteration of shift system, they will continue to report on the earlier shift arrangement. The conciliation officer had initiation conciliation proceedings on 7.7