IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-01-2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.NO.13921 of 2000
Sundaram, Industries Employees Union
rep. By its General Secretary ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary, Department of Labour,
Fort St.George,
Madras 600 009.
2. The Management of Sundaram
Industries Ltd.,
Rubber Factory TVS
Meenakshi Puram, Usilampatti Road,
Madurai 625 010 rep. by its
Managing Director. ...Respondents
Petiton filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent Government to refer the dispute declined to be referred under G.O.No.(V) 14 dated 7.1.2000 for adjudication .
For Petitioner: Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel
Ms.G.Ramapriya
For Respondent No.1:Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.2: Mr.Dwarkanathan
----
O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Trade Union challenging the order of the first respondent State Government in G.O(D).No. 14 , Labour and Employment Department dated 7.1.2000 in refusing to refer the Industrial dispute raised by them. The petitioner’s union raised an Industrial dispute with reference to the second respondent for introducing production targets without giving a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Conciliation Officer notified under the Act, viz., Labour Officer, Chennai after conciliating between the parties sent a failure report dated 3.6.1999.
3. The State Government upon considering the failure report and connected records by its order in G.O.(D).No.14 Labour and Employment Department dated 7.1,.2000 refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. The reason given by the Sate Government was that the subject matter of production targets were covered by a settlement signed under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The members of the petitioner union have given separate undertakings and they were enjoying the fruits of the said settlement. Since the trade union never objected to the settlement benefits, it is not a fit case for referring the issue for adjudication. It is against this order declining to refer, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 17.8.2000. On notice, the second respondent has filed a typed set of documents. In the typed set of documents, the second respondent has enclosed a Memorandum of Settlement signed under Section 18(1) of the Act dated 18.5.1998 as well as a specimen copy of the undertaking given by the workmen.
5. Mr.Dwarkanathan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also produced a copy of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.14 of 1997 dated 20.9.2007.
6. Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Union contended that while passing the order under Section 10(1)of the Act, the Government cannot reach its conclusion on merits. Section 10(1) of the Act does not authorise the Government to pass an order of this nature. He also submitted that the question of non-issuance of notice under Section 9A of the Act before introducing production norms is crucial and it will have to be adjudicated.
7. Though in the normal circumstances, this Court would agree the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Union, a perusal of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the workmen at Coach Division, Viralimalai wherein identical contentions were raised and were gone into by the Tribunal. While agreeing with the representative capacity of the union to raise the dispute, in the operative portion it declined to grant the relief and dismissed the Industrial Dispute.
8. In the operative portion of the award, it has been observed as follows:
“In the result, an award is passed holding that the petitioner’s union has sufficiency of interest/Competency of interest to represent and raise the present Industrial Dispute and it is further held that Section 9A of the I.D.Act is not applicable, since the change has been effected in accordance with the proviso to Section 9A(a) (Second part) (relating to Settlement) of the I.D.Act and in that view the action of the management introducing the limit for various jobs done by the employees since 19.9.95 is justified.”
9. In the annexure to the award, the settlements were referred to which were marked as Exs. M5 and M7. Since a similar issue has been adjudicated and the workmen have lost their case before the Tribunal, this Court finds that it was not necessary to order another reference for adjudication on an identical issue. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
VJY
To
1.The Secretary to Govt.,
Department of Labour,
Fort St.George, Madras 600 009.
2.The Managing Director.
The Management of Sundaram
Industries Ltd.,
Rubber Factory TVS
Meenakshi Puram, Usilampatti Road,
Madurai 625 010