1. The second respondents in both the writ petitions were workmen in the writ petitioner establishment, which was earlier a Company registered under the Companies Act with the name "Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation" and the same was fully owned by the Tamil Nadu Government and later became a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and it is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Background facts of the Writ Petitions:

The petitioner establishment supplies milk to the residents of Chennai in the brand name of "AAVIN" besides carrying out various other functions and the details of the activities of the petitioner are not necessary for deciding the issues involved in these writ petitions.

1.1. There were about 1500 workmen employed by the writ petitioner for its various activities. Majority of the workmen employed by the petitioner were members of the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Employees Union (shortly "the Employees Union") a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926.

1.2. The Employees Union resolved various disputes relating to the workmen employed by the petitioner by holding talks with the writ petitioner establishment and also entered into a settlement on 15.02.1980 before the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act") relating to conditions of service of its workmen.

1.3. In the year 1980, on the eve of Deepavali, the Employees Union made a representation to the petitioner establishment seeking payment of 20% bonus to workmen. While so, the petitioner establishment made unilateral declaration of minimum bonus at the rate of 8.33%. This unilateral declaration of minimum bonus was objected to by the Employees Union in its letter dated 17.10.1980. The Employees Union, in the said letter, reiterated its demand made on 18.08.1980 for 20% bonus. The Employees Union also stated that they met the General Manager on 23.09.1980 in this regard. Further, they informed that they would resort to one day token strike, without mentioning any date therein.

1.4. The petitioner establishment came with a response to the said letter in its notice dated 27.10.1980 requesting the workmen not to indulge in strike and if they indulged in strike, they would be held responsible for all the legal consequences.

1.5. While so, the Employees Union came with another letter dated 28.10.1980 to the petitioner establishment reiterating its demand of bonus and also making some other demands, such as, Festival Advance, Promotion to Depot Milk Distributors, Sanction of 20 days CL, Uniform, Rain Coat and Umbrella for the employees in the Marketing Section, etc. It was stated in the said letter dated 28.10.1980 that they would go on one day token strike, in support of their demands, on 31.10.1980.

1.6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, the Conciliation Officer under the I.D. Act issued notice dated 30.10.1980 based on the aforesaid notice dated 28.10.1980 advising the Employees Union not to resort to strike on 31.10.1980, as he seized of the matter.

1.7. The strike did not take place on 31.10.1980. The Employees Union postponed the direct action to 01.11.1980. It was also postponed further.

1.8. While so, the Employees Union decided to go on strike in support of its demands for one day as a token measure on 19.11.1980. Admittedly, there was no notice given for the said strike as contemplated under Section 22(1) of the I.D. Act and hence, it was illegal.

1.9. It is the case of the Employees Union that the workmen were denied entry on 20.11.1980, when they reported to duty after participating in one day token strike.

1.10. It is the case of the petitioner establishment that the workmen abandoned their service by participating in an illegal strike for a long period.

1.11. The Employees Union filed W.P. No. 860 of 1981 seeking a direction to the Government to refer the industrial dispute relating to