The court reinforced that a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot override the existing statutory rights of workers to claim wages resulting from illegal closure, as stipulated in the tribunal's award.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Since both writ petitions challenge the common order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3.The first writ petition is filed by 40 Petitioners, of whom 39 were the original claimants in separate claim petitions. The 32nd Petitioner, S. Nagendiran, is the son of M. Sankaranarayanan, the Claim Petitioner in C.P. No. 156 of 2015, and he has approached this Court as his legal representative. He has chosen to challenge the common order passed by the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, a total of 51 claim petitions—being C.P. Nos. 117 to 150 and 152 to 168 of 2015—were clubbed together and adjudicated by way of a common order following a joint trial.

4.Although there were 51 claim petitions, the present writ petition challenges only 40 of them, as 11 of the claimants have not chosen to assail the order. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Petitioners to implead the remaining 11 claimants as party respondents to the writ petition. In the absence of such impleadment, the adjudication would be incomplete, and the unchallenged portion of the order would attain finality and operate as res judicata against them. The first writ petition was admitted on 20.11.2019, and in the application filed for interim relief, only notice was ordered.

5.Fortunately for the 40 Petitioners in the first writ petition, a second writ petition came to be filed by the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Khadi Board'), challenging the very same common order in respect of all 51 claim petitions. By order dated 14.02.2020, the said writ petition was directed to be heard along with the earlier writ petition filed by the workers.

6.In that case, even before the Labour Court, one of the claimants—A. Appavu, the Petitioner in C.P. No. 126 of 2015—had passed away. Consequently, his legal heirs, namely his son and daughter, have been impleaded as Respondents 10 and 11 in the second writ petition. It could be stated that in view of the Khadi Board having filed a comprehensive challenge covering all 51 claim petitions and all concerned parties now being before this Court, the technical defect in the maintainability of the workers’ writ petition, to some extent, stands cured.

7.Before dealing into the facts of the claim petitions filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is necessary to set out the background of the case. The Petitioners, who were employees of the Khadi Board, were engaged in various handmade paper units. They were represented by a trade union affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). The said trade union raised an industrial dispute concerning the closure of 15 handmade paper units. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, and was taken on file as I.D. No. 100 of 2000.

8.The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated 10.05.2006, held that the closure of the handmade paper units was illegal and amounted to victimization of the workmen. In paragraphs 22 to 25 of the award, the Tribuna