Termination of workers after union formation without adhering to mandatory procedures of the Industrial Disputes Act is unjustified, warranting compensation instead of reinstatement.

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

A. The Writ Petition:

This Writ Petition is filed by the FAIR Thozhilalargal Sangam, a Trade Union, challenging the award of the Labour Court, Puducherry, dated 11.02.2003 made in I.D.No.6 of 1999. By the said award, the Labour Court answered the reference rejecting the claim of the workmen and answering the points in favour of the management.

B. The Reference:

2. By G.O.Rt.No.26/99/Lab/L, dated 05.02.1999, the following was referred for adjudication by the Government of Puducherry:

1. Whether the non-employment of the workmen listed in Annexure-II by the management of M/s.Fine Automotive and Industrial Radiators (P) Limited, Pondicherry is justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled?

2. To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of money, if can be so computed.

ANNEXURE - II

LIST OF WORKMEN TERMINATED

C. The case of the workmen:

3. The case of the workmen before the Labour Court was that the respondent management resorted to unfair labour practices on sensing that the workers are forming trade union. On 08.12.1996, they formed the trade union called FAIR THOZHILALARGAL SANGAM affiliated to CITU. Thereupon, on 30.12.1996, the said trade union’s Vice President Sathiamani, Secretary - Jayabal, Joint Secretary - Seshachalam, Executive Member - Chakkaravarthy who are all workers of the respondent management were terminated from service. On 31.12.1996, one other Executive Member of the petitioner’s trade union Iyyappan was also terminated from service. Those terminations were illegal and without adhering to the principles of natural justice and carried out purely for the purpose of wrecking vengeance for they having formed trade union.

3.1. Before, the Labour Officer (Conciliation), a dispute was raised relating to such termination. On the intervention of the Superintendent of Police (South) and due to workers unity, the respondent management came for discussion and ultimately, agreed to take them back and to give employment. Subsequently, on 10.01.1997, those five workers started functioning under the respondent management. However, the respondent management once again resorted to unfair labour practices and orally terminated the employees Sathiamani, Jayabal, Seshachalam, Chakkaravarthy, Iyyappan, Subramani, Balu and Selvaraj.

3.2. On 27.01.1997, they expressed their grievances by sending letters to the management. Thereupon, by virtue of the letter, dated 08.02.97, the respondent management informed Sathiamani, Jayabal, Seshachalam, Chakkaravarthy, Iyyappan about their terminations. Even during the pendency before the Labour Officer (Conciliation), the respondent resorted to such termination. Various workers were also terminated from service subsequently. The respondent also engaged new workers in the place of terminated employees.

3.3. The respondent management also resorted to Domestic Enquiry in respect of few officials by appointing one K.Babu, who is an Advocate for the respondent management and who also participated in the conciliation proceedings be