IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2006
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition Nos. 5522 to 5525 of 2003
and
W.P.M.p.Nos.5600 to 5603 of 2005
- - - -
Coimbatore District Powerloom Cloth
Dealers' Association rep.by its
President (Reg.No.22/1983)
No.34, Balaji Complex
Binny Compound, Tirupur 641 601. .. Petitioner in
W.P.5522 of 2003
Somanur Powerloom Cloth
Manufacturers' Association
rep. by its Secretary
Reg.No.43/1987
No.190/2, Senthil Nagar
Somanur-641 668. .. Petitioner in
W.P.No.5523 of 2003
Palladam Taluk Powerloom Textile
Traders' Association
rep.by its Secretary
Reg.No.14/1992
Kongu Velalar Thirumana Mandapam
Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664
Coimbatore District. .. Petitioner in
W.P.No.5524 of 2003
Avinashi Cloth Manufacturers'
Association, rep.by its Secretary
Reg.No.0178/2001
No.42, C.K.Complex West Car Street
Opp.State Bank, Avinashi 641 654 .. Petitioner in
W.P.No.5525 of 2003
vs
1. The District Collector
Coimbatore District.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Labour
Coimbatore.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirupur
Coimbatore District.
4. Kovai Mavatta Koolikku Nesavu
Seyyum Visaithari, Urimaiyalar
Sangangalin Kootamaippu
Regn.No.136/1991
rep.by its President, Power House Road
Somanur 641 668, Coimbatore District. .. Respondents
in all the W.Ps.
For petitioners : Mr.R.Gandhi Senior
Counsel
for Mr.R.G.Narendhiran
For respondents : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu GA for R1
to R3
Mr. J.Antony Jesus for R4
C O M M O N O R D E R
Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus
forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the
rights of the members of the petitioner Association to fix
the charges payable for the weaving done on job works by
powerloom owners or in any manner compelling them to enter
into any settlement/arrangements for the purpose of fixing
uniform charges for the weaving job work as they are
individual contracts, entered into between the members of
the petitioner association and the respective powerloom
owners.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as for the respondents.
3. The facts and circumstances leading to the above
writ petitions and the prayers being similar in nature, a
common order is passed in all these writ petitions.
4.The brief facts of the case, as stated by the
petitioners, are as follows:-
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
associations that they are registered associations,
registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act,1975. The associations have been formed for
the purpose of protecting the interests of its members, more
particularly, in matters pertaining to their business
activities, such as price fixation and marketing. The
members of the petitioner associations are traders or
manufacturers who purchase yarn from various spinning mills.
The yarn purchased by the members are of two types viz.,
warp yarn and weft yarn. The warp yarn purchased by the
members are handed over to sizing mills, on job work basis,
for the purpose of sizing the warp yarn. After the sizing
process is over, the sized warp yarn beams are taken back
from the sizing mills and handed over to the powerloom
owners, along with weft yarn, for being weaved into grey
fabrics. The powerloom owners are the members of the fourth
respondent association carrying on the process of weaving,
on job work basis, from the traders and manufacturers who
are members of the petitioner federation. The sized warp
yarn and the weft yarn are properties of the respective
members of the petitioner federation, which are handed over
to the powerlooms only for the purpose of weaving. The
ownership of the yarn continues to remain with the members
of the petitioner federation and the powerlooms are paid on
job work basis, depending upon the nature of the fabric
which has to be weaved. Thus, the activities of the members
of the petitioner associations are, in effect, individual
contracts, purely within the realm of private law field. No
governmental agency can exercise any control over such
individual contracts given for carrying out job works.
Since the spinning mills, including the Co-operative
spinning mills, in the state of Tamil Nadu have been facing
a severe recession, they were unable to pay the cotton
suppliers and the government was compelled to issue
notifications under the various enactments to protect the
spinning mills from being penalized for non-fulfillment of
their contractual obligations. The price of yarn was
fluctuating and consequently, the price fixed for the job
work, such as sizing or weaving, was also fluctuating
depending upon market conditions.
5. It is submitted that some of the members of the
fourth respondent association, who are powerloom owners,
have also conducted trading and manufacturing activities
like that of the members of the petitioner associations and
therefore, the Powerloom Owners cannot be termed as work
force and none of the labour welfare legislations would
apply to them, including the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
6. It is stated that the members of the fourth
respondent association had compelled the members of the
petitioner association to appear before the first respondent
for the purpose of arriving at a settlement, as regards the
charges payable for the weaving activities done by the
powerloom owners. Even though the respondents 1 to 3 have
no jurisdiction to interfere or having any control with
regard to the individual contracts, the first respondent,
unilaterally, by his proceedings, dated 14.02.2000, had
ordered that the members of the petitioner associations have
to pay 18% increased charges and in respect of certain
categories of fibres the charges have to be paid at the
increased rate of 20%. The said proceedings of the first
respondent is patently without jurisdiction. The members of
the petitioner associations deal in various types of fabrics
and they have individual tie-ups with powerloom owners and
each of such job works entrusted to the powerloom owners is
an individual contract and the rates are mutually agreed
upon between the members of the petitioner associations and
the powerloom owners, who are the members of the fourth
respondent association. By no stretch of imagination, the
contracts were falling within the ambit of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947, as there is no master-servant
relationship and it is not a matter pertaining to employment
or the terms of employment. Therefore, the action of the
respondents 1 to 3 , in compelling and threatening the
petitioner associations to come for negotiations, is wholly
without jurisdiction and is illegal in the eye of law, as it
would also be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Inspite of several oral representations, the
respondents 1 to 3 and their officials have been constantly
threatening the members of the petitioner associations, with
a view to compel them to enter into an arrangement with the
powerlooms owners. On receipt of the letter, dated
13.01.2003, from the fourth respondent, there is constant
official pressure on the petitioner associations to agree
for enhanced rates for the job works. Therefore, the
petitioner associations have been constrained to come before
this Court by way of filing the writ petitions.
7.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
second respondent it has been stated that as per
G.O.Ms.No.106, dated 25.07.2001, of the Labour and
Employment (D2) Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu,
the second respondent has been appointed as one of the
Conciliation Officers, under Section 4 of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947, to settle the industrial disputes arising
in the State of Tamil Nadu. The nature of transactions
between the members of the petitioner associations and the
members of the fourth respondent association, as well as the
nature of payments made by the petitioner associations to
the members of the fourth respondent association are well
within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.
Therefore, any dispute or difference falling under Section
2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, could be dealt
with by the second respondent, as contemplated by law. The
second respondent, as a conciliation officer, is expected to
function under the authority of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947, and under the power vested in him by the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules,1958.
The second respondent has been acting in good faith in the
discharge of the functions contemplated by law and as
prescribed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947. The petitioner associations and their members are
not in a position to show as to in what manner and to what
extent such exercise of powers and duties by the second
respondent have been wrongly exercised against them. In
such circumstances, the reliefs sought for in these writ
petitions cannot be granted. Therefore, the petitioner
associations and its members cannot be taken to be
aggrieved, at this stage. Therefore, the writ petitions
cannot be maintained on mere apprehensions and the
respondents cannot be prevented from discharging their
official duties in accordance with law.
8. On a perusal of the records placed before this
Court, it is seen that an invitation has been extended by
the communication, dated 1.3.2000, to the petitioner
associations to come for talks for a negotiated settlement,
with regard to the situation that has arisen due to the
strike in work in the powerloom industry.
9. It is seen that the sole apprehension of the
members of the petitioner associations is that they will be
compelled to enter into a compromise or a formal settlement
which will prejudice their interests. But there is nothing
shown by the petitioner associations as to the circumstances
under which they would be prejudiced and in what manner harm
would be caused to them. This Court normally does not
interfere with mere apprehensions and that too when the
apprehensions are with regard to the action of the
respondents 1 to 3, who are highly ranked and responsible
government officials, namely, the District
M.JAICHANDREN.J
Collector, the Joint Commissioner of Labour and the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Tirupur, while discharging their
official duties. However, it is made clear that if the
members of the petitioner associations have any objections
or reservations, with regard to the issues involved in the
proposed talks, it will be always open to them to raise them
at the relevant point of time, in the manner known to law.
Therefore, in the said circumstances, the writ petitions
are dismissed. In the impleading petitions, no orders are
necessary and hence, the impleading petitions are also
dismissed. No costs.
kvsg
To
1. The District Collector
Coimbatore District.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Labour
Coimbatore
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Tirupur
Coimbatore District.