COMMON ORDER

The writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.10224 of 2014 is filed by the subsequent purchaser namely M/s. Alagendra Textiles to quash the impugned award, dated 16.08.2012 and the details of the other writ petitions filed by M/s.

Alagendra Textiles are tabulated hereunder:

2. The brief facts as stated by the subsequent purchaser M/s. Alagendra Textiles are that the erstwhile mill owner had smooth relationship with the Union, but subsequently there was a problem with the management. The Union leaders had marked their attendance but were roaming around without doing any work with deliberate intention not to work. On 06.03.1996 at about 11 am the 2nd respondents / employees in all the writ petitions sought half a day to conduct gate meeting and leave was permitted. But without conducting meeting the said employees were in the rest shed and at about 1.45pm shouted at the supervisor namely Nagendramani and scolded in filthy language and bad words. On 07.03.1996 at about 9 am the same employees informed the security to meet the owner, when it was informed the owner has not come, again the said same employees shouted, scolded and also punched the Supervisor and threatened to kill him. Thereafter charge memo was issued on 26.03.1996, delinquents submitted explanation, enquiry date was fixed. But the delinquents filed suit in O.S.No.245 of 1998 on the file of Periyakulam Munsif Court and obtained interim stay in I.A.No.365 of 1998. After hearing the management both the I.A. and main suit were dismissed on 30.04.1996. Then again enquiry was fixed on various dates but the delinquents failed to appear, then an exparte order was passed holding the charges are proved. Based on the enquiry report the delinquents were dismissed from service. Thereafter due to financial constraints the mill was sold to the subsequent purchaser. The existing employees of Penthanakshi Mills submitted their resignation and got their accounts settled and only the land and buildings alone were purchased and the subsequent purchaser never promised or undertook to take over the pending labour cases. Even though the delinquents were not taken into the service of the subsequent purchaser, counter was filed by the petitioner based on the file obtained from the erstwhile owner. Since the “Kartha” of the family died, the legal heirs of the HUF were impleaded as parties. The Labour Court had held the enquiry conducted in fair, just and proper and the Labour Court has also held the charges are proved. However, has interfered with the punishment under section 11A and has held that collective bargaining is not punishable, the employees had raised their voice for their rights and the same cannot be find fault with. The contention of the petitioner that raising voice for their rights cannot be denied, but that cannot be raised by abusing the supervisor with filthy words, by damaging the mill properties. And further contended that the Labour Court cannot be interfere with the punishment if it is not shockingly proportionate. Moreover the said employees were never been an employee under the subsequent purchaser. The Labour Court had rightly held the subsequent purchaser in not successor in interest, but there after erroneously held that the writ petitioner is jointly liable and held prayed dismiss the claim of the employees / delinquents and allow the writ petitions filed by the subsequent purchaser.

3. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.12366 of 2014 is filed by the erstwhile owner and Hindu Undivided Family of Pethanakshi Mills for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned award, dated 16.08.2012 and the details of the other writ petitions filed by erstwh