Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4311
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Nirvagam, R S L 'B' Tannery
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu & Another
W.P.No.15372 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 31-10-2011
For the Petitioner:S. Ravindran for S.R. Shanmugadoss, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 - S.T. Varadarajulu, Advocate.
The proper discharge of statutory functions under the I.D. Act and the distinction between 'lock out' and 'lay off' as established by previous Supreme Court judgments are crucial legal principles established in this judgment.
Headnote:
Suspension of Operation - Industrial Dispute - I.D. Act, Section 25-M, 25-O, 33-C(2) - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Sections 25-M, 25-O, and 33-C(2), and their interpretations in the context of the dispute. The court highlighted the distinction between 'lock out' and 'lay off' as established by previous Supreme Court judgments and emphasized the importance of proper statutory functions under the I.D. Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which held that the suspension of operation of a tannery was not justified and the workers were entitled to full wages. The management argued that the union had no locus standi to raise the dispute and that the suspension was due to financial crisis and excess stock of raw materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal did not properly address the order of reference and did not discharge its statutory functions under the I.D. Act. The impugned Award was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the justification of the suspension of operation, the locus standi of the union to raise the dispute, and the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of properly addressing the order of reference and discharging statutory functions under the I.D. Act. It also highlighted the distinction between 'lock out' and 'lay off' as established by previous Supreme Court judgments.
Final Decision: The impugned Award was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The parties were allowed to file additional pleadings, and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the dispute within six months.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an Award passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal, dated 10.11.2008 made in I.D.No.46 of 2002. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal held that suspension of operation of tannery, i.e., RSLB Tannery, Vaduganthangal with effect from 15.4.2002 was not justified and the workers were entitled for full wages.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 05.08.2009. Pending the writ petition, this court had directed the management to deposit Rs.2 lakhs to the credit of I.D.No.46 of 2002 with the first respondent. On notice from this court, the second respondent is represented through their counsel. When the matter came up on 12.8.2011, this court directed the original records to be produced from the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly the Registry received the file and circulated it for perusal by this court.
3. Heard the arguments of Mr.S.Ravindran, learned counsel leading for Mr.S.R.Shanmugadoss, the learned counsel for the petitioner management and Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the second respondent union.
4. The second respondent union had raised a dispute against the suspension of operation declared by the petitioner management. It was stated by them that without any justification and due notice, they had imposed lock out with effect from 15.4.2002. As against the alleged lock out, they raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, Vellore. As the conciliation could not end in any settlement, the officer gave a failure report dated 17.6.2002. The failure report was sent to the Government. The State Government by their order in G.O.(D)No.830, Labour and Employment Department, dated 01.10.2002 had referred the dispute for adjudication by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal. The reference that was made was ‘whether the action of the petitioner RSL B Tannery unit in suspending the operation with effect from 15.4.2002 was legally justified and if the demand of the trade union is justified, an appropriate order may be granted. The said dispute was registered by the Tribunal as I.D.No.46 of 2002 and notices were sent to both sides.
5. The second respondent union has filed a claim statement. The petitioner has filed a counter statement dated Nil (September, 2004) that too after a period of two years from the date of the reference. In the counter statement, it was stated by them that they had never recognised the second respondent union. The second respondent has no locus standi to raise the dispute. The company had severe financial crisis. There was excess stock of raw materials. The company had put up notice narrating the events and giving employees holidays or leave till the company is revived. The suspension of operation declared by them was on the basis of 'no work, no pay'. Despite the petitioner tried to improve their performance, the same was not possible. It was not a case of either lock out or closure and no prior permission was required. The union as it was not recognised cannot raise a dispute.
6. Before the labour court, on behalf of the workmen M/s.K.William and Jai Sankar were examined as W.W.1 and W.W.2. Three documents were filed and marked as Exs.W.1 to W.3. On the side of the management, no oral and documentary evidence was examined. The Tribunal on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the factory was closed on 15.4.2002. Under Section 25-M of the I.D. Act, it was mandatory on the part of the management to get prior permission from the competent authority for laying off the workers. This aspect was deposed by W.W.1 and he was not even cross examined. In the absence of any prior permission and the petitioner not having proved the suspension of work, the action of the management in declaring suspension of operation was illegal. Hence the workers were entitled to get full wages and other attendant benefits.
7. It also transpired that during the pendency of the I.D.No
