{"id":249000,"date":"2009-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009"},"modified":"2014-03-30T15:09:29","modified_gmt":"2014-03-30T09:39:29","slug":"coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED : 06..10.2009\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nW.P.Nos.14314 and 14315 of2008\n\nCoimbatore Cement Workers Union,\n(Affiliated to AITUC),\nRegn.No. 254, \nNo.3\/117, Palakad Road,\nK.R.Ramasay Nilayam,\nGandhi Nagar, Madukkarai, Coimbatore 641105.\nRep. By its General Secretary,\nMr.C.V.Subramanian\n\n.... Petitioner in W.P.No.14314 of 2008\n\nCoimbatore Cement Workers Union,\n(Affiliated to AITUC),\nRegn.No. 254, \nNo.3\/117, Palakad Road,\nK.R.Ramasay Nilayam,\nGandhi Nagar, Madukkarai, Coimbatore 641105.\nRep. By its General Secretary,\nMr.C.V.Subramanian\n.... Petitioner in W.P.No.14315 of 2008\n\n\t\tVs.\t\n\n1.The Management of A.C.C.Ltd,\n   Madukkarai Cement Works,\n   Madukkarai Post, Coimbatore641 105,\n   Rep. By its Plant Head.\n\n2.The Desk Officer,\n   Government of India,\n   Ministry of Labour,\n   Shastri Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.\n\n3.Government of India,\n   Ministry of Labour,\n   Rep. By its Secretary,\n   Shastri Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.\n\n4.Dutta Enterprises,\n   MIG-II, 2636, M.P.Housing Road,\n   Industrial Estate, Bilai460 026,\n   Madya Pradesh. \n... Respondents W.P.No.14314 of 2008<\/pre>\n
1.The Management of A.C.C.Ltd,
\n   Madukkarai Cement Works,
\n   Madukkarai Post, Coimbatore641 105,
\n   Rep. By its Plant Head.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Desk Officer,
\n   Government of India,
\n   Ministry of Labour,
\n   Shastri Bhavan,
\n   Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n
3.Government of India,
\n   Ministry of Labour,
\n   Rep. By its Secretary,
\n   Shastri Bhavan,   Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n
… Respondents W.P.No.14315 of 2008<\/p>\n
Prayer in W.P.No.14314 of 2008:-\n<\/p>\n
\tPetition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the  records connected with the order of rejection of reference made in No.L-29011\/4\/2008-IR(M),  Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , passed by the Desk Officer,Government of India,Ministry of Labour, New Delhi dated 15.04.2008 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to refer the issue of dismissal   of 27 members  of petitioner Union for adjudication to the Labour Court (Central),Chennai-6 based on the conciliation failure report  dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai-6  in Ref.No.5\/15\/207-B2, dated 29.01.2008.\n<\/p>\n
Prayer in W.P.No.14315 of 2008:-\n<\/p>\n
\tPetition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified  Mandamus, calling for the  records connected with the order of rejection of reference made in No.L-29011\/3\/2008-IR(M),  Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , passed by the Desk Officer,Government of India,Ministry of Labour,  New Delhi dated 15.04.2008 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to refer the issue for adjudication for the appropriate Court of Law.<\/p>\n
\n\n\tFor petitioners in both\t: M\/s.S.Arunachalam\n\tWrit  Petitions \t\t   Associates\n\n\tFor 1st respondents  in both : Mr.T.S.Gopalan\n\tWrit Petitions\n\n\tFor respondents 2 and 3  in : Mr.J.Venkatraj, ACGSC\n\tboth  Writ Petitions\n\n\tFor 4th respondent in \t: No Appearance\n\tW.P.No.14314 of 2008\n\n\nCOMMON ORDER\n\n\tOrders of the Central Government declining to refer the Industrial Disputes under Section 10<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are under challenge in these writ petitions. \n\t\n<\/pre>\n
\t2. The petitioner is  a Trade Union.  Its members are mostly  contract labourers. According to the petitioner Union, its members,  were engaged by the 1st respondent \/ Principal Employer through a  Contractor – M\/s.Dutta Enterprises, which is the 4th respondent in W.P.No.14314 of 2008; but, the contract between the 1st respondent and Dutta Enterprises   is  sham and nominal and therefore,  the members of the petitioner union, who  are workmen in the factory of the 1st respondent, are entitled for reinstatement and for permanent absorption. In this regard, Industrial Disputes were raised. The conciliation failed. Considering the failure reports Nos.M.5\/14\/2007-B2 and M.5\/15\/2007-B2, dated 29.01.2008, the Central Government  by orders in  Ref.No.L-29011\/4\/2008-IR(M) and No.L-29011\/3\/2008-IR(M) dated 15.04.2008 declined to refer  the same for adjudication to the Labour Court. Challenging the same,  these two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner Union.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. As stated  above, the main  contention of  the petitioner is that the contract said to have been entered into between the 1st respondent and M\/s.Dutta Enterprises is sham and nominal and therefore, the members of the petitioner union should be treated as employees of the1st respondent and as such they are entitled for absorption. In any view  of the matter, since there are valid Industrial Disputes, the 3rd respondent ought to have referred the same for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal\/Labour Court, it is contended.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. In the counter  affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, inter alia,  it is stated that there is no relationship  of master and servant between the members of the petitioner union and the 1st respondent management. The 1st respondent is a registered establishment as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ( in short, “the CLRA Act”).  Likewise, M\/s.Dutta Enterprises is a licensed contractor under the provisions of the Act.  There is no prohibition order issued under Section 10<\/a> of the Act, prohibiting the 1st respondent from engaging contract labourers through a licensed contractor. Therefore,  a contract  was entered into between the 1st respondent and M\/s.Dutta Enterprises under which the members  of the petitioner union were engaged as contract labourers.  All the provisions of the Act have been scrupulously complied with. Therefore, the members of the petitioner union cannot be treated as workmen of the 1st respondent management and so there is no question of regularisation, it is contended. Having considered all the above, the Central Government on application of mind  has  come  to  the conclusion that the members  of the petitioner union have not been employed directly by the 1st respondent and that is the reason why the impugned order has been rightly passed,which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court, it is  contended.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The learned counsel appearing  for the respondents  2 and 3 in both the writ petitions would adopt the stand taken  by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in both the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  I have considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The CLRA Act regulates the service conditions of contract labourers, where abolition is not  possible.  Admittedly, there  is no prohibition order issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act against the 1st respondent prohibiting the said establishment from employing  contract labours.  Indisputably, the 1st respondent is a registered establishment as per Section 7 of CLRA Act.  Therefore, the 1st respondent can employ contract labourers through  a licensed contractor.   Concededly,  M\/s.Dutta Enterprises is a licensed contractor as per Section 13 of the CLRA Act. Therefore, the said contractor can supply contract labourers to the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It  is the contention of the 1st respondent  that there was a valid contract  entered into between the 1st respondent and  M\/s.Dutta Enterprises under which the members of the petitioner  union have  been engaged. This fact is  disputed  by the petitioner Union. According to the petitioner Union, though the members of the  petitioner  union were engaged  by the 1st respondent through  M\/s.Dutta Enterprises , as  a matter of fact, they have been engaged directly by the 1st respondent and the contract said to have been entered  into between the 1st respondent  and  M\/s.Dutta Enterprises is sham and nominal and the  said contract has  been  created only  for  the  purpose of defeating the interest of the workmen, who enjoy protection under various labour enactments. In my considered opinion, this crucial question can be resolved only on  evidence to be let in by both parties. From the mere assertion made by  way of affidavit or from the averments in the Complaint before  Conciliation Officer, it cannot be decided. It needs a thorough adjudication , which could be  done only by the Industrial Tribunal\/Labour Court. The power  of the Central Government under Section 10<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act to decide this complex question is very limited. Though the Central Government is not like a post office to simply refer the Industrial Dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, nevertheless, the Central Government has to merely satisfy itself prima facie as to whether there is a dispute  worth reference made out by the trade union or not. The Central Government cannot go deep into the disputed facts and to give a finding thereby taking the role of an industrial adjudicator.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. A perusal  of the impugned orders would go to show that the Central Government has taken the view that the members of the petitioner union have not been directly employed by the 1st respondent  and therefore,  the dispute cannot be referred for adjudication. This conclusion has been arrived at by the Central Government presumably from the records produced by the parties. In my considered opinion, though from the records it could be seen that there is a contract entered  into between the 1st respondent and  M\/s.Dutta Enterprises, from that, it cannot be concluded that the said contract is  genuine. The said disputed question cannot be resolved by the Central Government under Section 10<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act,   as evidence, both oral and documentary, is required  to decide the same in greater depth by the Labour Court. For these reasons, I am  convinced that  the Central Government was not right in declining to refer the Industrial Disputes  for adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Union would rely on the judgement in Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India and others<\/a>, 1998 III L.L.J.  (Supp.) 792, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court   after having analysed the legal position has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having heard to the facts and circumstances of the case,we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed.  The Central Government instead of referring the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial Court under Section 10<\/a> of the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it itself decided the dispute which is not permissible under the law.  We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and of the Central Government and direct the Central Government to refer the dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Industrial Court under Section 10of<\/a> the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We further direct the Central Government to make the reference within three months.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The said principle stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the instant cases.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent   would rely on a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Steel Authority   of India Limited and another v. Union of India and others<\/a>, 2006 (3) LLJ 1037 (SC).  In my considered opinion, the principle stated  in the said judgement does not apply to the instant cases as facts are clearly distinguishable.  In that case before the Supreme Court,  reference  made by the Government to  the Labour Court was,  “whether the contract workers employed under the principle employer can  demand absorption as regular permanent employees”.  While dealing with such reference, the Hon’ble Supreme Court , held that neither the Labour Court nor the writ Court could determine the question  whether the contract labour should be  abolished or not as per Section 10<\/a> of the Contract  Labour Act, 1970. But, in the instant case, the petitioner union does not plead that contract labour should be abolished and in pursuance of the same its members are to be regularised. Instead,  the reference sought to be made is on   the grievance that the members of the petitioner union are employed in  the 1st respondent  by means of a sham and nominal of contract.  Therefore,  the principle stated in the said judgement is of no application at all to the instant cases.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  The learned counsel relies on yet another judgement in  Steel Authority of India Limited and another vs. State of West Bengal and others<\/a>, 2009 (1) L.L.J. 241 (SC).  In that case, factually, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there was no plea by the workmen regarding the agreement being sham and bogus and such a plea was made belatedly for the first time without full supportable materials.  In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held that the High Court ought not to have entertained the plea of the workmen  to direct the Government to refer the dispute under Section 10<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act. But, in the cases on hand,  a perusal of the documents would go a long way to show that there is a plea in the complaint preferred at the first instance itself that the so called contract entered into between the 1st respondent and M\/s.Dutta Enterprises is not genuine. In para 3 of the complaint made under Section 2<\/a> (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act<\/a>, the petitioner union has stated ” The 2nd respondent is a name lender and intermediary as  a contractor,who is having limited control or liability over the workmen of the 1st respondent company. The 1st respondent is a principle employer  and he is liable out and out statutorily. ” Thus, at the earliest point of time a definite stand has been taken by the petitioner union that the so called contract between the 1st respondent and M\/s.Dutta Enterprises is not genuine. Therefore, the view held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case does not help the 1st respondent  in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The learned counsel for the  1st respondent would further submit that the condition precedent for referring a dispute for adjudication by an Industrial Adjudicator is passing  of  a  prohibition order under Section  10of the CLRA Act. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of such prohibition  order, it is not at  all permissible  under law for the Labour Court  to go into the question as to whether the contract is genuine or  not and so, reference to the Labour Court cannot be made.  The said argument, in my considered opinion, is untenable.  As I have already stated,  if there is a prohibition order under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, the establishment cannot  employ any contract labourer. It is only in the absence of a prohibition order, contract labourers can be engaged by the registered establishment. Simply because, the establishment is registered and the contractor is also licensed, it cannot be concluded that the so called contract entered into between a registered establishment and a licensed contractor, is genuine. It is also possible that there may be a sham and nominal contract entered into between a registered establishment and  a licensed contractor. Therefore,  it needs to be established  by means of  evidence before the Labour Court that the contract is genuine  and the  same is not  sham and nominal. The Central Government, with its limited power under Section 10<\/a> of  the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot go into the intricacies  of this question and  to give a  finding in respect of the same. That is the reason why a consistent  view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in number of judgements (vide – Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India and others<\/a>, 1998 III L.L.J.  (Supp.) 792) that Central Government has to refer the dispute to the Labour Court leaving the issue open for the said Court to decide on the basis of the evidence to be let in by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would point out  that  in  the affidavit filed  in support of the writ petitions there is a positive assertion that the members of the petitioner union were contract labourers and so they cannot now take a different stand that they were directly employed by the 1st respondent.  Though  at one place in the affidavit it has been stated by the petitioner  Union that its members were  transferred by M\/s.Dutta Enterprises for other work spot,  in a different place it has been stated that the members of the petitioner union have been terminated from service directly by the 1st respondent , the learned counsel pointed out. When there is such a conflict, according to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the Central Government was  right in  going by the records to hold that the members of the petitioner union are only contract labourers.  Though the said argument, at  first blush, appears to be reasonable, the same does not persuade me.   The stands taken by the petitioner Union, in my considered opinion,  cannot be treated as conflicting. It is the admitted case of the  petitioner union that its members were employed through the contractor.  But,what all they would say is that the contract is not genuine.  Therefore, there is no conflicting  stand taken by the petitioner union  at all. Even assuming that there is such a conflict in the  stand taken by the petitioner union,  the effect of such conflict has to be gone into only by the Industrial Tribunal\/Labour Court and the Central Government cannot go  deep into this  and   give  a finding.  As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the power of the Central Government is very limited and since it is beyond the power of the Central Government to decide the question as to whether the contract is genuine or sham and nominal, it ought to have referred the  disputes for adjudication by the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. For the above reasons, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned orders and to direct the Central Government to refer the disputes for adjudication before the appropriate Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In the result,the writ petitions are allowed;  the impugned orders passed by the  2nd respondent are set aside; and the Central Government  is directed to  refer the Disputes for adjudication by the appropriate Labour Court (Central), Chennai, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
kmk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Desk Officer,  Government of India,Ministry of Labour,
\n   Shastri Bhavan,  Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Ministry of Labour,Union of India, Shastri Bhavan,<\/p>\n
Rafi Marg,
\nNew Delhi 110 001<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06..10.2009 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.Nos.14314 and 14315 of2008 Coimbatore Cement Workers Union, (Affiliated to AITUC), Regn.No. 254, No.3\/117, Palakad Road, K.R.Ramasay Nilayam, Gandhi Nagar, Madukkarai, Coimbatore […]<\/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-249000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCoimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009 - 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\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-30T09:39:29+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-30T09:39:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2765,\"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\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-30T09:39:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009 - 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\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-30T09:39:29+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-30T09:39:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009"},"wordCount":2765,"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\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009","name":"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-30T09:39:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/coimbatore-cement-workers-union-vs-the-management-of-a-c-c-ltd-on-6-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Coimbatore Cement Workers Union vs The Management Of A.C.C.Ltd on 6 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/249000","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=249000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}