Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3346
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
The Management of RSL Industries (Textile Division) Formerly RSL Industries Ltd.,(Textile Division)
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Others
W.P.Nos.5497 of 2006, 23782 of 2007, 3901 to 3903, 7479 of 2009 & Connected MPs
Decided on : 22-07-2011
For the Petitioner:S. Ravindran for S.R. Shanmugadoss, G.B. Saravana Bhavan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Sunil Kumar, G.B. Saravana Bhavan, RM. Muthukumar, G. Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of workers to full wages under Section 25-O(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during the period of mill closure, and the impact of settlements under Section 18(1) on workers' rights under Chapter V-B of the Act.
Headnote:
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - 25-O(6), 33-C(1), 33-C(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly focusing on Section 25-O(6) and Section 33-C(2) and their interpretations in the context of workers' entitlement to wages and benefits during the period of closure of the mill. The court also considered the binding nature of settlements under Section 18(1) and their impact on workers' rights under Chapter V-B of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Management of RSL Industries, Textile Division, Coimbatore, challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, which computed amounts in favor of the contesting respondents for wages and other benefits during the period of mill closure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workers were entitled to full wages under Section 25-O(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, during the period of mill closure. The court also rejected the management's contention regarding the binding nature of the settlement under Section 18(1) and its impact on workers' rights under Chapter V-B of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of workers to wages and benefits during the mill closure, the binding nature of settlements, and the maintainability of claims under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the workers were entitled to full wages under Section 25-O(6) of the Act during the period of mill closure, and the settlement under Section 18(1) did not bar their rights under Chapter V-B of the Act. The court also found that claims under Section 33-C(2) were maintainable in this context.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions filed by the management were dismissed, and the court ruled in favor of the workers' entitlement to wages and benefits during the mill closure period.
1. In W.P.No.5497 of 2006, the petitioner is the Management of RSL Industries, Textile Division, Coimbatore. They have come forward to file the writ petition, challenging a common order passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P.Nos.674 to 707 of 2004 and 709 to 730 of 2004. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2005, the Labour Court computed the amounts in favour of the contesting respondents pertaining to the claim for wages for the period from 12.12.2003 to 31.05.2004 depending upon their salary. The Labour Court held that they were entitled for full wages in terms of 25-O(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act).
2. The writ petition was admitted on 28.02.2006. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted on the same day. Subsequently, it was extended on 03.04.2006. The aggrieved contesting respondents filed vacate stay application in WPMP.No.147 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by this Court. The interim stay was made absolute by an order dated 03.11.2008.
3. In the meanwhile, the workmen who were covered by the impugned order filed a separate writ petition in W.P.No.7479 of 2009, challenging that portion of the order, wherein and by which, they were denied the payment of bonus, overtime wages, encashment of earned leave and interest. That writ petition was admitted on 23.04.2009.
4. When these two writ petitions were pending, the very same Management had filed three other writ petitions being W.P.Nos.3901 to 3903 of 2009. In those writ petitions, they had challenged different orders passed by the Labour Court in C.P.Nos.181 of 2005, 1101 of 2004 and 1102 of 2004. Those three writ petitions were admitted on 27.04.2009. Pending those writ petitions, an interim stay was granted.
5. The Management also filed another writ petition, being W.P.No.23782 of 2007, challenging an earlier order dated 18.11.2005 in C.P.Nos.533 to 539 of 2004, 627 to 629 of 2004 and 651 to 671 of 2004. That writ petition was admitted on 23.07.2007 and an interim injunction was also granted.
6. In the subsequent four writ petitions, it was stated that the order passed by the Labour Court was an ex parte order. But the workmen thereafter moved the State Government and had obtained recovery certificate in terms of Section 33-C(1) of the I.D.Act. While they sought to enforce the revenue recovery certificate, the writ petitions came to be filed. Though it is contended that it was an ex parte order, the Management has not moved the Labour Court with an application to set aside the ex parte order in terms of Rule 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. Therefore, only on the ground that an order was passed ex parte, this Court is not inclined to set aside those orders.
7. With reference to the claim made by the workmen before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act, in their claim statement, they had stated that the Trade Union to which they were members was trying to collude with the Management and therefore, 400 out of 600 workers had quit the I.N.T.U.C Union and joined a separate union called Tamizhaga Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam. In the meanwhile, INTUC Union had entered into a settlement on 10.04.2004, wherein by which the Union had agreed that the Management was facing a severe financial hardship and the workers have agreed that they will not claim any wages for the period of closure and that period will be taken as 'No work No pay' and that the Management will try to settle the terminal benefits. It was also agreed to pay goodwill amount of Rs.10,000/- in respect of Apprentice and Rs.5,000/- for Badlies. The other workers will get their claim relating to gratuity. Once these amounts have been settled, the workers will not claim any other amount and in future, if the Management re-opens the Mill, the workmen will be given preference in the recruitment process. In Clause 1 of the settlement, it was agreed that the workers themselves voluntarily will come forward to
