The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear relationship between workers and management, statutory entitlement, and the absence of any settlement or award in favor of the workmen to maintain a writ petition.

K. Chandru, J.

Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Suriya Narayanan, learned Counsel for Petitioners, Mr. V. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (for short TASMAC) and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for third Respondent Trade Union.

2. These two writ petitions were filed by the trade unions registered under the Trade Union Act. The prayer in the two writ petitions are identical inasmuch as both trade unions were challenging the order passed by the Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, Madurai, dated 31.3.2010 and for a direction to allow six members of the first trade union and four members of the second trade union to do loading and unloading work as well as affixing the seal of the Prohibition & Excise Department on the stocks kept in the godown in Madurai urban depot situated at Manalur Village in Sivagangai District.

3. While the first writ petition was admitted on 12.4.2010 and an order of status quo was granted, in the second writ petition, on notice, a direction to maintain status quo was ordered. It was further directed that both writ petitions should be tried together. Hence both writ petitions were posted together for final disposal.

4. On behalf of the Respondent TASMAC, a counter affidavit, dated 30.6.2010 was filed in the first writ petition and a counter affidavit, dated 7.7.2010 was filed in the second writ petition. The impleaded third Respondent trade union has also filed a counter affidavit, dated 19.4.2010.

5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are as follows:

(5.1) The Respondent TASMAC is a monopoly in the purchase, storing, distribution and selling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). For this purpose, they were having their own godowns or were hiring godowns established by the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation. Initially, an IMFL Depot, was functioning at Anuppanadi. Later, it was shifted to Kappallur to be housed in the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation godown. This godown at Kappallur caters both to Madurai Urban and Rural Districts. They were subsequently rechristened as Madurai East and West Districts. On 05.11.2009, the TASMAC built its own godown at Manalur village (Sivagangai District).

(5.2) For the purpose of loading and unloading work in these godowns, certain workmen were engaged by the TASMAC and the works were performed by the workmen. They were carrying out loading and unloading operations and were affixing the seals supplied by the Prohibition and Excise Department on the IMFL stock. The workmen who were engaged for this purpose came to be represented by three different trade unions. They were two writ Petitioners and the third Respondent. Very soon, the names of trade unions lost their significance and later referred to even in the official communication as union led by Mr. Mahadevan (W.P.(MD) No. 4866 of 2010) and the union led by Mr. A. Muthuraman (W.P.(MD) No. 4964 of 2010) and also the union led by Mr. Bose, the third Respondent in both writ petitions.

(5.3) The system of engaging workers for loading and unloading works was not governed by any contract or agreement or any settlement under various labour enactments. In fact, the stand of the TASMAC was that they were not employees of TASMAC. They are self employed workers performing their work on their own on collective payment by TASMAC. In view of shifting from Anuppanadi godown to Kappallur godown and thereafter to Manalur godown, there were internecine quarrel among workers led by the three trade unions. Virtually there was a war between the three trade unions to capture the control over loading and unloading operations in these godowns.

(5.4) The inter-se dispute between the workmen as well as dispute between unions and the management were hardly taken before the forums under the Industrial Disputes Act as there was no law operating in this field. They were settled either through muscle power or at the intervention of law enforcing authorities, i.e