SEETHA VENKATESH MILLS EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. GOVERMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the notice dated September 7,2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication after receipt of the failure report from the second respondent and till then direct the third respondent to continue to maintain the existing service conditions that prevailed prior to September 7, 2000 awaiting any award that may be passed by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the issues contained in the notice, dated March 5, 2000 of the third respondent issued under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) According to the petitioner on December 29, 1992, a settlement was entered into between various unions representing the workmen including the petitioner and the third respondent, in and by which the third respondent agreed to reopen the Mills on December 30, 1992 which was under lay off for about six months, that subsequently, the third respondent again declared a lay-off between March 22, 1993 and May 4, 1995, that the mill was again reopened on May 5, 1996, that there was a lockout between June 1, 1997 and August 17, 1999, and that thereafter, a settlement was entered into on November 19, 1999 under Section 18(1) of the Act regarding work load and revision of wages. It is contended that on March 5, 2000, the management issued a notice under Section 9-A of the Act and proposed a reduction in basic wages, stoppage of annual increments for five years, fixed dearness allowance of Rs. 2000 for five years, withdrawal of variable dearness allowance, ceiling on house rent allowance at Rs. 52 per month, etc., and that those changes would come into effect from February 1, 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the notice of the third respondent, dated March 5, 2000, purporting to introduce certain changes in the service conditions of the employees, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute on March 11, 2000 and that conciliation in respect of the said dispute pending. The petitioner contends that in those circumstances, the third respondent put up a notice, dated September 7, 2000, expressing its decision to give effect to the notice, dated March 5, 2000. It was in those circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition was resisted by the third respondent contending that the third respondent suffered huge loss over the period, that as on March 31, 2000, the accumulated loss crossed Rs. 14 crores, that due to various constraints faced by the third respondent, it was decided to seek for reduction of wages, dearness allowance, etc., that the notice, dated March 5, 2000, seeking for modification of the terms of the settlement, dated November 19, 1999, had to be issued, that the reasons for effecting the proposed changes were also duly explained in the annexure to the notice issued under Section 9-A of the Act, that since the third respondent has become a sick industrial company under the provisions of SIC Act, 1985, an application No. 139 of 1997 has been preferred before BIFR for framing a rehabilitation scheme, that the said application is still pending, that subsequent to 9-A notice, dated March 5, 2000, no conciliation has been initiated by the second respondent that therefore there could be no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, that under the fond hope that the workmen and the unions would agree for the changes proposed in the 9-A notice, implementation was postponed for few months, that since losses were mounting up at the rate of Rs. 5 lakh per month. It was decided to implement the 9-A notice on and from September 7, 2000 commencing from the wages payable for the month of August, 2000, that 12 workmen have received wages as per the 9-A notice, that two other unions out of three unions functioning in the third respondent's mill namely Sri Seetha Venkatesh Mills Limited, Kathirvedu, Chennai, affiliated to LPF and Dr.Ambedkar Panchalai Thozhilalar Sangam have also signed a settlement under Secton 18(1) of the Act on September 29, 2000 accepting the terms of 9-A notice with certain modifications, that 16 other workmen have also signed similar such settlement of various dates commencing from March 29, 2000, that the two unions who have signed the settlement command a membership of 42 workmen out of the total strength of 172 workmen, that as on date 88 workmen have signed the settlement under Section 18(1) and agreed to abide by the modified terms of 9-A notice, dated March 5, 2000 and therefore, there was no illegality in issuing the 9-A notice and the implementation of it cannot be called in question.