{"id":172000,"date":"2004-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004"},"modified":"2015-07-07T04:28:40","modified_gmt":"2015-07-06T22:58:40","slug":"the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Workmen Represented By The … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Workmen Represented By The … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 23\/07\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nW.P.NO.19459 of 2002 and W.P.NO.29868 of 2002\nAND\nWPMP.NOs.26864 & 48410 OF 2002\n\nW.P.NO.19459 OF 2002\nThe Workmen represented by the Secretary\nAddisons Paints & Chemicals Limited,\nAssistants Association (Regd.No.1344\/MDS)\nNo.22, State Bank Officer Colony,\n1st Street, Perambur High Road,\nChennai 600 012.                                ..  Petitioner\n\n-VS-\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Industrial Tribunal,\n   Chennai 600 104.\n\n2. The Management of\n   Addisons Paints & Chemicals Limited,\n   Huzur Gardens, Sembiam,\n   Chennai 600 011.                             ..  Respondents<\/pre>\n
W.P.NO.29868 OF 2002<\/p>\n
The Management of
\n   Addisons Paints & Chemicals Limited,
\nHuzur Gardens, Sembiam,
\nChennai 600 011.                                ..  Petitioner<\/p>\n
                Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. The Presiding Officer,
\n   Industrial Tribunal,
\n   Chennai 600 104.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Secretary
\n   Addison Paints & Chemicals Ltd.,
\n      Assistants Association,
\n   10, Vasan Street, Perambur,
\n   Madras 11.                                   .. Respondents<\/p>\n
        Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
\nissuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.<\/p>\n
\n\n!For Petitioner\nin WP.19459\/02 &        :  Mr.S.  Vaidyanathan for\n2nd Respondent in       M\/s.  Row & Reddy\nW.P.No.29868\/02\n\n\n^For 2nd Respondent\nin WP.19459\/02 &        :  Mr.  Sanjay Mohan\nPetitioner in\nW.P.No.29868\/02\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                A brief background of the dispute is required to be noticed.
\n        The continuing dispute is between the Management of Addison  Paints  &
\nChemicals  Limited  and some of its employees (hereinafter referred to as the
\nManagement and the employees respectively).  Prior to 197 3, the  employees
\nwere  performing duties as clerks, chemists, stenos, etc., and were being paid
\nwages consisting of basic pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance, etc..
\nIn April, 1973 such employees were paid consolidated payment of wages  on  the
\nbasis  of  contracts  between  the  management  and  the  concerned employees.
\nHowever, a dispute arose which was ultimately referred by  the  Government  to
\nthe Industrial Tribunal  on  2.11.1984  by G.O.Ms.No.2313.  The said G.O.  was
\nchallenged by the management in W.P.No.12729 of 1984.  Even though  such  writ
\npetition  was admitted, no stay had been granted and the Tribunal proceeded to
\nconsider the matter.  Even though 22 questions were referred for adjudication,
\nfor the purpose of the present writ petitions only Issue Nos.2, 3 and 6  being
\nrelevant, are quoted hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
         Issue  No.2.    Whether the demand for payment of dearness Allowance
\nbased on cost of living index is justified, if so to fix  the  rate  and  date
\nfrom which it should be given effect to.\n<\/p>\n
        Issue No.3.    Whether  the  demand  for fixation of scales of pay for
\nvarious categories of assistants is justified, if so to fix (a) scales of  pay\n<\/p>\n
(b) manner of fitment, and (c) the date from which it should be given effect.\n<\/p>\n
        Issue No.6.  Whether the demand for payment of House Rent Allowance is
\njustified,  if  so  to fix the rate and the date from which it should be given
\neffect to.<\/p>\n
                2.  Relating to  issue  No.3,  the  Tribunal  by  award  dated
\n29.12.1986  granted an increase of Rs.125\/- per month by way of additional sum
\nto be paid with effect from  1.4.1986,  if  the  concerned  workers  have  not
\nreceived the  same  earlier.    All  other  issues  were  also  decided by the
\nTribunal.  W.P.No.3419 of 1987 was filed on behalf of  the  employees  by  the
\nAssociation challenging the award so far as it went against their contentions,
\nwhereas  the  management  filed  W.P.No.1679 of 1989 challenging G.O.Ms.No.128
\ndated 13.1.1989, which related to nonemployment of one  Sri  E.D.    Arumugam.
\nAll the three writ petitions, namely W.P.No.12729\/84, 3419\/87 and 1679\/89 were
\ndisposed of by common judgment dated 8.4.1992.  Learned single Judge held that
\nW.P.No.12729\/84 had  become  infructuous.  In W.P.No.3419 of 1987, the learned
\nsingle Judge quashed the award relating to issue Nos.2,3 and  6  and  remitted
\nthe matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.  The Association, however,
\nfiled  W.A.No.787  of  1992  challenging that part of the order of the learned
\nsingle Judge rejecting the claim of certain other  demands.    The  management
\nfiled  W.A.No.802  of  1992  challenging  the  order of remand relating to the
\nissues 2,3 and 6 concerning the fixation of basic  wages,  dearness  allowance
\nand house  rent  allowance.    The writ appeals were admitted, but no stay had
\nbeen granted.  In course of time, a fresh award was passed by  the  Industrial
\nTribunal  on 31.10.1992 wherein it was held that the contracts under which the
\nset of workmen in the category called Junior Management  Assistant  (In  short
\nJMA)  came  to  be  governed  was  illegal  and unenforceable with effect from
\n1.11.19 84 and payment of dearness allowance  to  all  the  concerned  workmen
\nshould  be  made by the management at the usual rate and formula applicable to
\nMadras City with effect from  1.11.1984.    In  respect  of  Issue  No.3,  the
\nTribunal  held  that in the place of consolidated wages, the workmen should be
\ncategorized into certain designations with certain scale of pay  as  indicated
\nby the Tribunal.    Such  direction  was  made  effective from 1.11.1984.  The
\nTribunal while abolishing JMA system with effect from 1.11.1984 made it  clear
\nthat  those  JMAs,  who  accepted  further  promotion  were free to retain the
\npromotional post by rejecting the relief granted under the award, but if  they
\nintend  to  avail  the  benefits  of  the  award  they  should  not retain the
\npromotional post.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   Against  the  aforesaid  award,  the   management   filed
\nW.P.No.12476 of  2003.   The Association filed W.P.No.13814 of 1993 contending
\nthat fixation of basic wages were not proper.  The above  two  writ  petitions
\nwere taken up  along  with  the  pending  W.A.Nos.    787 and 802 of 1992.  By
\njudgment dated 19.3.1994, the Division Bench raised the following seven points
\nfor determination :-\n<\/p>\n
         (1) Whether the service contracts entered into by the members of the
\nJMAs  Association  with  the  management  in  1973  are  unjust,  illegal  and
\nunenforceable and whether the members of the JMAs Association are bound by the
\nservice contracts ?\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  Whether the JMAs having all along enjoyed the benefits, under the
\nservice contracts  be  allowed  to  break  the  service  contracts  and  claim
\npay-scales, D.A.  and H.R.A.  to which the non-JMA workmen are entitled to ?\n<\/p>\n
        (3) Whether the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 8 April 199 2
\nin  W.OP.No.3419 of 1987 setting asidei the findings of the Tribunal, dated 29
\nDecember 1986 in I.D.No.83 of 1984 on issues 2, 3  and  6  and  remanding  the
\nmatter  to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on the said three issues is correct
\n?\n<\/p>\n
        (4) Whether the award of the Tribunal dated 31 December 1992,  holding
\nthat the JMAs are entitled to :\n<\/p>\n
        (a) payment of D.A.  at the usual rate and
\nformula applicable to Madras City with                  effect from 1 November
\n1984,\n<\/p>\n
        (b) that in the place of consolidated wages,            JMAs     shall
\nhave regular scales of pay                      with  increment  with   effect
\nfrom 1                          November 19 84 and,\n<\/p>\n
        (c) that the H.R.A payable to the JMAs shall            be at the same
\nrates applicable to                     workmen covered by Exhibit W89
\nsettlement with effect from 1 November                  1984 is correct ?\n<\/p>\n
        (5)  Whether  the  wage scale fixed in the award of Tribunal, dated 31
\nDecember 1992 for various categories of JMAs in Paras 34 and 36 of  the  award
\nof the Tribunal is correct ?\n<\/p>\n
        (6)  Whether  the  Members of the JMAs association are entitled to the
\nbenefit of the settlement under Exhibit W81 and Exhibit W89 ?\n<\/p>\n
        (7) Whether the award of  the  Tribunal  dated  31  December  1992  in
\nI.D.No.83  of  1984 will apply to the JMAs who have subsequently resigned from
\nthe JMAs Association ?\n<\/p>\n
                4.  On Point No.1, the Division Bench held that the  contracts
\nentered into between the association by the management was unjust, illegal and
\nunenforceable and the members of the association are not bound by such service
\ncontracts.   On  Point  No.2  it  was  held  that  JMAs were not estopped from
\nclaiming pay scales, D.A., H.R.A.  On Point No.3, the  Division  Bench  upheld
\nthe  order of the learned single Judge dated 8 .4.1992 in remanding the matter
\nin respect of issue Nos.2,3 and 6.  On Point NO.4,  the  Division  Bench  held
\nthat  JMAs  were  entitled  to  be  treated on par with non-JMA workmen in the
\nmatter of scales of pay, D.A., and H.R.A..   The  Division  Bench  upheld  the
\norder of the Tribunal dated 31.12.1992 in respect of issue Nos.2,3 and 6 which
\nhad  been  reconsidered  in the light of the observation of the learned single
\nJudge.  On question Nos.5 and 6, the Division Bench observed :\n<\/p>\n
         .  .  .  In our view,  the  Tribunal  has  not  adopted  the  proper
\nprocedure in  fixing  the  pay-scales  of  the JMAs in question.  The Tribunal
\nought to have taken into account the basic pay for each of the JMAs when  they
\nentered  the service of the management as non JMA workmen and then should have
\nfixed the basic pay as on  2  November  1984  taking  into  consideration  the
\nincrements  to  which  he  would  be  entitled  to  and  the  benefits  of the
\nsettlements under Exhibit W81 and W89 treating him as non- JMA workmen  as  if
\nthe  concerned  workmen  never entered into the JMAs service contract with the
\nmanagement.  As the Tribunal has not followed the said procedure in fixing the
\npay-scales for the JMAs in question, the award of the Tribunal in paras 34 and
\n36 with regard to the fixation of pay-scales alone is liable to be  set  aside
\nand accordingly it is set aside.  We ourselves are not in a position to do the
\nexercise  of  fixing the correct wage scales for the JMAs in question because,
\nthere is no consensus between the parties as to what is the basic pay drawn by
\nthe JMAs in question when they entered into the service of the management as a
\nnon- JMA workmen.  In fact,  the  chart  submitted  by  the  counsel  for  the
\nmanagement  showing  they  joined  the  service  of  the management as non-JMA
\nworkmen during the course of hearing of  all  these  matters  by  us  was  not
\naccepted by  the counsel for the J.M.A.s Association.  In these circumstances
\nwe are constrained to remit the matter back to the Tribunal  for  the  limited
\npurpose of fixing the wages scales for the JMAs in question as on 2 November 1
\n984,on  the  basis of the various categories of non JMA workmen on the date of
\nentering into service.  Accordingly, the question of fixation of the scales of
\npay to the workmen in question alone, is remitted to the  Tribunal  for  fresh
\ndisposal  according  to  law and in the light of the observations made in this
\nparagraph of the judgment.  In fixing the wage scales, the  Tribunal  is  also
\ndirected to proceed on the basis that the JMAs in question are entitled to the
\nbenefits  of  the  settlement under Exhibits W81 and W89 as the JMAs have been
\ndeclared to the workmen, by the award of the Tribunal, dated 29 December 1986,
\nwhich has not been challenged by the management.  In  the  case  of  JMAs  who
\nentered  into  the  service  of  JMAs  after  1973, the basic pay of a similar
\nnon-JMA workmen doing the very same work may be taken as the basic pay of such
\nJMA, who entered the service of the management after 1973.<\/p>\n
                5.  On question No.7, the Division Bench held that  the  award
\nof  the  Tribunal  dated  31.12.1992  will  not  apply  to  those JMAs who had
\nvoluntarily resigned from the association as evidenced by Exhibit  M77  series
\nand  also  to  those  JMAs who had accepted further promotion and who opted to
\nretain such promotion.  The Division Bench confirmed the award of the Tribunal
\nto the effect that no JMAs could be permitted to enjoy the benefits under  the
\naward dated 31.12.1992 and also the benefits under the JMAs service contracts.\n<\/p>\n
                6.    Ultimately,   the  Division  Bench  gave  the  following
\ndirections:-\n<\/p>\n
         .  .  .  In view of our findings on points iv to vi the award of the
\nIndustrial Tribunal dated 31 December 1992 in I.D.No.83 of 1984 with regard to
\nmode of fixation of pay-scales as found in Paras.34 and 36 of the award is set
\naside and the matter is itted to the  Tribunal  for  the  limited  purpose  of
\nfixing wage scales for the JMAs in question as on 2 November 1984 according to
\nlaw and  in  the  light  of  the  observations made in this judgment.  To that
\nextent W.P.No.13814 of 1993 filed by the JMAs Association  is  partly  allowed
\nand in  other  respects  W.P.No.13814 of 1993 is dismissed.  In other respects
\nthe order of the Tribunal, dated 31 December 1992  in  I.D.No.83  of  1984  is
\nconfirmed and consequently W.P.No.12476 of 1993 is dismissed.  The Tribunal is
\ndirected  to  dispose of the matter within 3 months from 4 April 1994 on which
\ndate the parties will appear before this Tribunal.<\/p>\n
                7.  After the aforesaid decision of the  Division  Bench,  the
\nTribunal  again  took  up  the  exercise  and passed an award which was to the
\nliking of neither the management nor the employees and W.P.No.820 of 1995  and
\nW.P.No.12389  of  1995  came  to  be filed by the management and the employees
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Learned single Judge while deciding the matter came to the
\nconclusion that the Tribunal had not kept  the  observation  of  the  Division
\nBench  in mind while deciding the matter and observed that for considering the
\nquestion remitted for fresh consideration by the Division Bench, the following
\nrelevant questions would arise for determination to the Tribunal, namely –\n<\/p>\n
         (1) The concerned persons to whom the award could be made applicable
\n?\n<\/p>\n
        (2) What was the scale of pay drawn by the concerned  workmen  at  the
\ntime they  joined  as  JMAs  prior to 1973?  i.e., before they governed by the
\nservice contracts.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) What was the scale of wages actually drawn by the  concerned  JMAs
\nprior  to  the date when their wages came to be consolidated under the service
\ncontract which is stated to have taken place in the year 197 3?\n<\/p>\n
        (4) What was the respective scales of pay of non-JMA workmen who  were
\ndoing  the  same  kind  of  work as that of the JMA workmen that was prevalent
\nduring the period when the consolidation of wages came  to  be  made  for  the
\nconcerned JMAs and upto 2 November 1984.\n<\/p>\n
        (5)  What  was  the  scales of pay ofo the JMA to be determined from 2
\nNovember  1984  by  fixing  them  in  the  appropriate  categories   and   the
\ncorresponding scales based on the duties performed by them during the relevant
\nperiod vis-a-vis the categories and scales of pay of the nonJMA workmen during
\nthe  relevant  period  by taking into consideration the increments to which he
\nwould be entitled to and the benefits of the settlements under W81 and W89.<\/p>\n
                9.   Accordingly,  the   matter   was   remanded   for   fresh
\nconsideration.    Thereafter  the  present  impugned  award,  which  is  again
\nchallenged  by  the  management  and  the  employees  in  two  separate   writ
\npetitions,has been passed.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   The  Tribunal  on  fresh  consideration relating to five
\nquestions, which had been formulated by the learned single Judge came  to  the
\nconclusion  that  11  persons  (named  in  paragraph  17  of  the award of the
\nTribunal) having resigned from the Association and having accepted  promotion,
\nhave to  be excluded from the benefits of the award.  The Tribunal negatived
\nthe contention of the management for deletion of  sales  representatives  like
\nSri E.D.  Arumugam and other 10 persons (as indicated in para 19 of the award)
\nand held  .   .    .   .  For the above reasoning there cannot be deletion of
\neleven  individuals.  Similarly  it  also  rejected  the  contention  of  the
\nmanagement  regarding 18 other persons and ultimately held that 89 persons are
\nentitled to benefits.  The names  of  such  persons  under  various  headings,
\nnamely  Chemists (20 ), Salesman (18), Assistants (48), Research Scientist (1)
\nand Junior Clerk (1) have been indicated at the end of para 21  of  the  award
\npassed by  the  Tribunal.    While  considering  other  aspects,  the Tribunal
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
         .  .  .  Fitment of pay  of  only  89  persons  found  eligible  are
\ncontained  in  page  1  to  60 of Ex.C-8 and page Nos.1 to 32, 34 in Ex.C-8-1.
\nTheir scales of pay are found in Annexure-1 at page 66 of Ex.C-8.   Thus  page
\n66, 67 and 1 to 60 of Ex.C-8 and page 1 to 32 and 34 of Ex.C-8 -1 form part of
\nthe award.  They are appended herewith.  Award passed accordingly.<\/p>\n
                11.   The main contention raised in the writ petition filed on
\nbehalf of the management is to the effect  that  the  Tribunal  has  committed
\nerror  of  law  in making the award applicable to the sales representatives as
\nsuch sales representatives were  not  workmen  as  per  the  findings  of  the
\nDivision  Bench  in  W.A.Nos.787  and  802  of  1992  and other connected writ
\npetitions.  It is the contention of the learned  counsel  for  the  management
\nthat  since the High Court had come to a categorical conclusion that the sales
\nrepresentatives were not workmen, the Tribunal should  not  have  gone  beyond
\nsuch finding and come to a different conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   Even  though  such  a  contention may appear prima facie
\nattractive, I am not inclined to accept such a contention on deeper  scrutiny.
\nThere  is no doubt that in the context of the reference made by the Government
\nin connection with non-engagement of E.D.  Arumugham it was  observed  by  the
\nHigh  Court that the sales representatives did not come within the category of
\nworkmen.  However, such observation was in  the  context  of  question  as  to
\nwhether non-engagement  of  E.D.    Arumugam  could  be  the subject matter of
\nindustrial dispute.  Such observation must be understood  in  the  context  in
\nwhich it has been made.  It has to be remembered that the conclusion of the Tr
\nibunal is  by  applying the doctrine of community of interest.  The question
\nof fixation of  salary  or  payment  of  Dearness  Allowance  and  House  Rent
\nAllowance,  etc.,  could also be considered for others had not been challenged
\nby the management at that stage nor such conclusion had been  anyway  reversed
\nby the  High  Court.    The  entire  discussion  relating to reference of E.D.
\nArumugam was in the context of his non-engagement and obviously had no bearing
\non the question as to whether the basic salary of other employees, who  though
\nstrictly  speaking  were  not workmen, had to be considered for the purpose of
\nfixing salary and entitlement to Dearness  Allowance,  House  Rent  Allowance,
\netc., because  of the community of interest.  The reasoning of the Tribunal on
\nthis aspect cannot be stated to be vitiated by any error of  law  apparent  on
\nthe face  of  record.    The  question  of  validity of non-engagement of E.D.
\nArumugam is not one of the matters to be decided in the industrial dispute and
\nis not a matter of dispute in the present writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  The other contention raised  by  the  management  to  the
\neffect  that the Tribunal had extended the benefit of the award to the persons
\nwho had already accepted the controversial benefit and who were  not  inclined
\nto  continue  the  industrial  dispute appears to be very vague to warrant any
\nserious consideration.  The writ petition filed by the management therefore is
\ndismissed.  However, it is made clear  that  the  validity  or  invalidity  of
\nnon-engagement of E.D.  Arumugam is not a matter which has been decided in the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   In the writ petition filed on behalf of the Association,
\ncontention has been raised  challenging  the  fixation  of  salary  and  other
\nperquisites.   It  has  been  contended  that  the Tribunal has wrongly placed
\nreliance upon Ex.C-8 an Ex.C-8-1 and has fixed the salary without  keeping  in
\nview  the  observations  made  by  the  Division Bench and subsequently by the
\nlearned single Judge while remanding the matter for fresh consideration.    It
\nis contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal should have accepted the
\ndocuments which had been filed on behalf of the employees and fixed the salary
\nand other perquisites accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  The High Court, while deciding a matter under Article 226
\nof  the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the
\naward rendered by the industrial forum  in  an  industrial  dispute.    Merely
\nbecause  the Tribunal has accepted one set of evidence or documents or has not
\naccepted the rival contention, is not a ground to interfere with  such  award.
\nIt  is  of  course  true  that  if  the  Tribunal  commits  an error of law or
\ncompletely misdirects itself or does not take into consideration the important
\nfacts and circumstances, such award becomes vulnerable.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  In the present case, the Tribunal has kept  in  view  the
\nobservation  made  by  the  Division Bench and the learned single Judge at the
\ntime of remand, has applied  its  judicial  mind  to  the  various  facts  and
\ncircumstances including the documents and has come to a particular conclusion.
\nEven  if  such  conclusion  appears  to  be conservative either to the counsel
\nappearing for the parties or even to the High Court, in  the  absence  of  any
\nerror  of  law or fundamental defect, the High Court should not interfere with
\nsuch conclusion merely because it may be inclined to take a different view  of
\nthe matter.    Therefore,  the  award  is  not liable to be interfered on this
\nscore.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  For the aforesaid reasons, I do not  find  any  merit  in
\neither of  the  writ  petitions which are accordingly dismissed.  The award if
\nnot already implemented should be  implemented  by  the  management  within  a
\nperiod of four months.  The additional payment should be made to the concerned
\nemployees  individually  even  if  some  of  them  have  retired  or  left the
\nemployment in the meantime.  There is no
\norder as to costs.  Consequently, WPMP.NOs.26864 & 48410 OF 2002 are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
dpk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Presiding Officer,
\nIndustrial Tribunal, Chennai 600 104.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Management of
\nAddisons Paints & Chemicals Limited,
\nHuzur Gardens, Sembiam,
\nChennai 600 011.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Secretary
\nAddison Paints & Chemicals Ltd.,
\nAssistants Association,
\n10, Vasan Street, Perambur,
\nMadras 11.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Workmen Represented By The … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/07\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA W.P.NO.19459 of 2002 and W.P.NO.29868 of 2002 AND WPMP.NOs.26864 & 48410 OF 2002 W.P.NO.19459 OF 2002 The Workmen represented by the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Workmen Represented By The ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Workmen Represented By The ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-06T22:58:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Workmen Represented By The … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-06T22:58:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3391,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004\",\"name\":\"The Workmen Represented By The ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-06T22:58:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Workmen Represented By The … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Workmen Represented By The ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Workmen Represented By The ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-06T22:58:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Workmen Represented By The … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004","datePublished":"2004-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-06T22:58:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004"},"wordCount":3391,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004","name":"The Workmen Represented By The ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-06T22:58:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-workmen-represented-by-the-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-july-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Workmen Represented By The … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 July, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172000","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}