P VIRUDHACHALAM Vs. MANAGEMENT OF LOTUS MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an interesting question arises for consideration in this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India. It reads as under:-

(2.) A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings require to be stated at the outset:- BACKGROUND FACTS:

(3.) The five appellants before us were employed at the relevant time under respondent No. 1 in various departments. Respondent No. 1 was running a textile mill wherein the appellants were employed. The said textile mill remained closed due to financial crises from 8-8-1976 to 31-1-1978. The workmen of the mill raised a dispute pertaining to lay-off during the aforesaid period and claimed appropriate wages for the said period. In the conciliation proceedings a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 28-12-1977. Five unions representing all the workmen took part in the conciliation proceedings. A settlement was arrived at in these proceedings between the management on the one hand and the unions on the other. In clause 6 of the settlement, it was provided that lay-off compensation would be paid for the days during which the mill did not function and marked as "no work". It was also agreed that the compensation would be paid after January 1981 in instalments and the question as to the number of instalments would be decided by both parties on mutual discussion in January 1980. Though it was agreed under that settlement in January 1980, the workers insisted upon immediate payment of compensation and raised another dispute. Consequently, the earlier settlement lost its efficacy. Again the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer who held negotiations. Different unions representing various categories of workmen took part in the negotiations. The union representing the present appellants also took part in the said negotiations. Ultimately a fresh settlement was arrived at during conciliation proceedings as per Section 12(3) of the Act on 5-5-1980. Out of five unions representing the workmen of respondent No. 1-Textile Mill, four unions signed the said settlement but the union representing the appellants did not think it fit to sign the same. The relevant terms of the aforesaid settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act in connection with the payment of lay-off compensation read as under:-