IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-02-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 15279 of 2011 Asian Bearings Limited Perigai Road, Belathur-635 124, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri Dist.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai-104.

2.Asian Bearings Employees Union

38, Ram Theru, Hosur Kizhakku, Dharmapuri Mavattam.

3.Dharmapuri Mavatta Anna Engineering Thozhil Sangam, 5/10a, Naserpettai, Taluk Office Road, Hosur, Dharmapuri Mavattam.

4.Asian Bearings Workers Union No.3/124-3, S.R.Building, Teachers Colony, Soodapuram, Belathur Anjal, Hosur Taluk-635 124.

Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s): M/s. S. Haroon Al Rasheed, For Respondent(s): R1 - Tribunal M/s.P.Chandrasekaran for R4 RR2 and 3 Not Ready Notice

ORDER

Questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.D.No.50 of 2004, dated 31.08.2009, the present writ petition has been filed. The Labour Court had declared the lay-off under the guise of partial suspension of work as unjustified and held that the employees are entitled to full wages during the period of lay-off.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of ball bearings and employed around 755 persons in various categories like engineers, managers workers and staff. It is the case of the petitioner that due to recession in the engineering industry and availability of imported ball bearings at a cheaper rate, production was hit and it resulted in suspension of operation for the period from 30.08.2001 to 30.04.2005. It is the contention of the workmen that the worker's union was not operating and it indulged in unlawful activities leading to stoppage of work. It is the case of the petitioner that revival plans did not materialise and dues of the employees could not be paid. According to the petitioner, there was no income from 2005 onwards and workmen were aware of the financial situation and indeed, they too consented for reducing the workforce and for employing workmen in rotation basis. The Labour Court did not appreciate the facts in its proper perspective and erred in declaring the lay-

off as illegal. Hence, the petitioner prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3. The fourth respondent union has filed a detailed counter-affidavit contending contra. The fourth respondent has stated that the union had never consented for reduction of labour force or for deployment on rotation basis. According to the fourth respondent, the union had filed a claim petition in CP No.2 of 2019 for implementing the award in I.D.No.50 of 2004 and the same is pending before the Labour Court, Hosur. The petitioner has declared a lock out of the factory on 09.01.2006 and the union had raised an industrial dispute as against the illegal lock out and the same was taken on file as I.D.No.20 of 2007. The Labour Court has declared the said lockout as illegal and unjustified and directed the management to lift the lockout within a period of three months from the date of the award and provide employment to the workmen. The Labour Court has also held that the workmen would be entitled to full wages from 09.01.2016 till the date when the lockout is lifted, along with consequent benefits.

Arguments:

4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is not the pleasure of the management to indulge in lockout or lay-offs and that there was a genuine financial crisis, which was beyond the control of the petitioner management. Learned counsel also submitted that the market was flooded with cheap variety of similar bearings and therefore, the business was badly hit. This has resulted in weak financial position of the petitioner management and the very foundation of the petitioner management was shaken. Production became very low and the petitioner could not pay its employees properly. The workers were aware of the weak financial position of the petitioner management and they consent for lay-offs, rotation of employees and partial