COMMON ORDER

The writ petition in WP.No.30891 of 2014 has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 19.11.2005 thereby rejected the request of taking action under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act as against the fourth respondent.

2. The petitioner was employed in the fourth respondent mill (hereinafter called as 'mill'). It had 'A' and 'B' mills and there were employed 567 workers. While being so, all of sudden, the fourth respondent abruptly stopped the running of the mills from the month of February 2005 without complying the various statutory provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It employed more than 100 workmen and as such, it is coming under the definition of 'Industrial Establishment' under Section 2(ka) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, it mandates the industrial establishments to apply for prior permission in the case of lay-off and closure. However, the fourth respondent neither resorted to lay-off nor declared closure as contemplated under Section 25-M and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act while stopping the production activities of the mills. Thereafter, on 04.01.1999, the fourth respondent mill entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act with individual workman. As per the settlement clause (1), the fourth respondent offered to sell the non-utilised machineries, vacant sites after retaining some of the machineries and lands.

3 Out of the sale proceeds, the legal dues of the workmen who agreed to leave employment voluntarily would be settled and after settling those claims, the remaining amount will be utilised for running the mills and the workmen who had not opted for leaving the mill would be provided with work. The petitioner and other workmen (hereinafter called as 'workmen') did not agree to leave their employment and they waited for opening of mills. The fourth respondent after selling the machineries and portion of lands, settled the claims of the workmen who had agreed to leave their employment. However, the fourth respondent failed to reopen the mills and did not give any employment to the petitioner and other workmen who were similarly placed like him. Though huge amounts with the hands of the fourth respondent, it instead of reopening the mill, continued to keep the mill under illegal closure thereby the fourth respondent violated the settlement dated 04.01.1999 and it is an offence punishable under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Without considering the above, the second respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner by the order impugned in this writ petition dated

19.11.2005.

4. The fourth respondent in WP.No.30891 of 2014 has filed the writ miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.17872 of 2019 in WP.No.19740 of 1999 for direction to the Registry of this Court to refund the amount of Rs.1,12,97,155/- lying in the court deposit in their favour. It is submitted that the mill owned 13.66 acres of land. It could not function because of various factors including labour problems. Therefore, there were huge arrears of salary and wages on one hand to be paid and on other hand, huge government dues such as property tax, electricity charges, etc. were in arrears. Therefore, the Government as well as various Unions approached this Court and this Court passed various orders and finally directed to sell the assets of the company admeasuring 13.66 acres of immovable property and the sale proceeds to be deposited before this Court so as to enable the dues are paid. Accordingly, the said property was sold for the total consideration of approximately Rs.4 crores and odd. After deducting all the arrears, the remaining sum of Rs.1,14,43,520/- was deposited before this Court, out of which all the dues were paid to the Labour and for other expenses. While being so, Tirupur Municipality had filed suit in OS.No.359 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruppur for recovery of properties tax to the tune of Rs.43,1