The court determined that despite the Labour Court's findings, the workmen were entitled to compensation due to their prolonged non-employment and lack of received benefits.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 18.10.2012 made in I.D.No.387 of 2002. By the said award, the claim of the workmen to declare the lockout as illegal and pay all the benefits to them was negatived by the Labour Court.

2. The brief factual background, in which, the Writ Petition arises is that the 10 workmen, who are now pursuing the Writ Petition, were originally the employees of the first respondent management which is a paper mill. It is seen from the records that originally, the mill was run by a Company known as T.T.K. Company and that there was a transfer of undertaking in the year 1999. Immediately, after the purchase of the mill, the new management resorted to making certain changes in the functioning of the mill which seemed to be objected to by the common group formed by the trade union.

3. Under the said circumstances, it is seen that the management, immediately after the purchase, realised that the quantum of output and the market price of the paper and the cost price do not match and every month, there will be a huge loss. Taking stock of the said situation, they shut the unit for maintenance. During the maintenance, when the various designations of the workmen were not given effect and all of them were directed to do some of the work that was available during the maintenance shutdown, the workmen agitated and that was pursued to be a strike and the conflict escalated.

4. While so, the management announced the suspension of operation. The workmen raised a dispute stating that the lockout was illegal and without following the procedure contemplated under the Act. There have been peace talks and conciliation proceedings are also going on. While so, the management also announced the closure of the mill itself. Under the said circumstances, upon receipt of the failure report, the Government, by G.O.D.No.605, dated 29.07.2002, referred the dispute for adjudication of the Labour Court, Salem. The following question was referred for adjudication:-

5. A Claim Petition was filed in detail by the workmen which was resisted by a detailed counter statement. The Labour Court took up the matter for enquiry. The union office bearer namely, one Mohan Kumar, was examined as W.W.1 on behalf of the workmen and Exs.W-1 to W-43 were marked. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the management and Exs.M-1 to M-2 were marked on behalf of the management. The Labour Court considered the case of the parties. The Labour Court considered the technical objection that was made for the petitioner union to represent the workmen. It found that not even the registration number is mentioned in the various communications and no registration certificate was produced before the Labour Court. On merit, it found that the evidence points out towards labour unrest and the workmen failed to prove that there was any illegal lockout from 27.02.2000 and came to the conclusion that no relief can be granted and accordingly, answered the reference. Aggrieved thereby, the union filed the Writ Petition.

6. Pending the Writ Petition, the first respondent management also objected that when the petitioner trade union was not even a registered union at the commencement of proceedings, subsequently, the union was struck off from the rolls and is no longer a registered body and therefore, it could not maintain a Writ Petition. It is at this stage, that the present 10 workmen, who were originally the members of the said union, came forward that since the other workmen went away and were not pursuing, most of them also received the benefits from the management and settled the issue from the management, the said 10 workmen may be substituted as petitioners and be permitted to continue the Writ Petition. Accordingly, an order was passed in W.M.P.No.24452 of 2024 and these 10 workmen were substituted as writ petitioners. It is at this stage, that this Writ Petition is now argued before this Court.

7. Heard Mrs.D.Nagasaila, learn